> IIUC, the webforum comments that these links point to argue that because > there is work required outside the blockchain to assemble the toxic > data, the data in question doesn't *just* reside in the blockchain. Is > that right, or do you have another interpretation?
Yes, I (same person who wrote those comments), am arguing that there is a difference between an image, a video, etc., and scrambled bits of data that need _special instructions_ to *re-assemble* them into an image, video, etc., and that this should be self-evident. > I don't see how it follows from this particular situation that there > would be no way to put toxic data in the global append-only ledger that > Bitcoin depends on. Do you think that there is some principled reason > why the blockchain can avoid ingestion of toxic data of any form, > whether it's (depending on your jurisdiction) CP or "intellectual > property" or blasphemy or hate speech or …? I am arguing that /Bitcoin's/ blockchain is not designed to support such "toxic ingestion" of such content. > Does your argument for why the bitcoin blockchain is defended against > this hold for arbitrary global append-only datastructures, or is it > specific to bitcoin? This is specific to Bitcoin and Bitcoin-like datastructures which simply do not allocate enough room for arbitrary data. That they can be hacked into getting tiny pieces of arbitrary data to be stored in separate chunks, requiring re-assembly through special knowledge (e.g. a special tool and precise knowledge of which transaction to pass through that special tool), does not mean that these datastructures are somehow the entity to point to as carriers of "toxic data". If you were to argue that they are, then you can equally argue that the entire Internet is illegal because it can be used, with specialized tools and specialized knowledge, to transport toxic data. - Greg -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Tue 2018-03-20 19:12:04 -0400, Tao Effect wrote: >> I don't think it's a real problem, just another week, another social >> attack on Bitcoin from those who are heavily invested in seeing >> Bitcoin die. >> >> The reason why it's not a legitimate issue are here: >> >> https://lobste.rs/s/walhsk/child_abuse_imagery_found_within_bitcoin#c_xf6oor >> <https://lobste.rs/s/walhsk/child_abuse_imagery_found_within_bitcoin#c_xf6oor> >> >> And here: >> >> https://lobste.rs/s/walhsk/child_abuse_imagery_found_within_bitcoin#c_76hm8v >> >> But that will not stop people from pretending it is. > > IIUC, the webforum comments that these links point to argue that because > there is work required outside the blockchain to assemble the toxic > data, the data in question doesn't *just* reside in the blockchain. Is > that right, or do you have another interpretation? > > I don't see how it follows from this particular situation that there > would be no way to put toxic data in the global append-only ledger that > Bitcoin depends on. Do you think that there is some principled reason > why the blockchain can avoid ingestion of toxic data of any form, > whether it's (depending on your jurisdiction) CP or "intellectual > property" or blasphemy or hate speech or …? > > Does your argument for why the bitcoin blockchain is defended against > this hold for arbitrary global append-only datastructures, or is it > specific to bitcoin? > > Regards, > > --dkg
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
