RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)@BitMEXResearch @kyletorpey This is like saying that security programmers talking about attacks increases the probability of an attack, so security programmers should never talk about attacks. That's a view that the cyhperpunks utterly rejected as it would lead to poorly thought-out security. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)Possible is a very different thing, morally and legally, from frequent. It was blocked by the vast majority of nodes, practically impossible for the routine user to do, and the policy sent a social and legal signal that the activity was considered an illegitimate rather than a normal use of Bitcoin. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)And indeed the basic problem here seems to be a poor threat model, a lack of understanding of the threats, in particular the legal and moral risks that arise from arbitrary content that do not arise from financial transactions. Failing to discuss these threats leads to a poor understanding of the threat environment. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)This. And the biggest cost of the spam isn't the volume; it's the legal and moral risks that come with arbitrary non-financial content, which are far larger, far less predictable, and far less manageable by the bitcoin leal community, than the legal and moral risks from merely arbitrary financial transactions. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)@bigdilf31521159 @SameeLiaei No, it wouldn't "just as easily" go after financial transactions. The two areas of law and politics are worlds apart. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)CSAM and CP should be prosecuted ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)Having a feature that looks like it's intended for non-financial content may be a much larger legal risk than having a feature intended for financial transactions that is subverted to post non-financial content. It's not "all just bits" in the eyes of the law. Caveat IANAL. A feature that looks like it's intended for non-financial content also sends a strong social signal that non-financial content is welcome on Bitcoin. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)You don't understand the threat environment, and again fail with logic. If you don't want courts to arbitrate transactions, then the transaction need to be as narrow in legal scope as possible -- as far from arbitrary in content as possible.Whether or not you want the law, the law wants you -- to follow it. This is not the law of financial transactions which took a long time to figure out how to deal with crypto, had a low motivation level, and for which we have armies of lawyers. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)I'm writing about very real laws in very real jurisdictions in which Bitcoin miners, pools, noderunners, and wallets operate. Real laws in real jurisdictions are quite far from being "speculative boogeymen." There are, today, libraries full of an extremely wide variety of laws that apply to an extremely wide variety of arbitrary content.In all the technology examples you list, it is possible for the operators to *delete* data once they have obtained knowledge that it exists, witho ...

RT Justin Bechler (@1914ad)Make no mistake, at its most fundamental, Core 30 is a tax on all Bitcoin nodes. https://t.co/a6bgiYZQFx ...