🔥 LATEST: Visa has partnered with AquaNow to use stablecoins for faster settlements, aiming to speed up financial transactions. https://t.co/SAMb5xy4mf ...

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. ...

Legal Risks & Social Signals - A feature resembling non-financial content carries a greater legal risk than a financial feature misused for non-financial content [1] - The law doesn't treat all digital content equally; financial and non-financial content are viewed differently [1] - A feature designed for non-financial content signals that such content is welcome on Bitcoin [1]

Core Argument - The report critiques Gloria Zhao's stance on defining "spam" in Bitcoin transactions, arguing her definition is too limited by focusing on resource usage rather than transaction content [2][3] - The author posits that defining "spam" requires considering the *purpose* of Bitcoin, which they believe is being undermined by allowing steganographic content [2] - The report introduces a "third way" to define spam, focusing on steganography's impact on the blockchain's low-entropy carrier signal, which neither top-down nor market-driven approaches adequately address [5][6] Technical Analysis - Steganographic content is defined as spam due to its disruption of the blockchain's low-entropy carrier signal, essential for transmitting high-value transactions [5] - The report outlines three ways to deal with steganographic spam: redefine system purpose, restrict system purpose, or ignore the problem, ultimately arguing against ignoring it [7][8] - The author places Zhao in the camp of redefining the system purpose to accommodate steganographic content, which they deem untenable due to logical contradictions [9] Ethical and Legal Implications - Defining steganographic content as legitimate use leads to the loss of *Mens rea* (guilty mind) defense, posing moral and ethical challenges [10] - Allowing arbitrary content introduces legal risks, potentially exposing the Bitcoin reference client to a wide variety of extreme legal risks [10] Sociopolitical Commentary - The author suggests that the attempt to be "apolitical" regarding Bitcoin's use is itself a political stance [10]

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)Far greater moral and legal disputes will arise over OP_RETURN when it is carrying far more arbitrary unmoderatable content rather than predominantly just unmoderatable financial transactions. You get yourself mixed up with the coming flood of illegal content at your peril (and perhaps the rest of ours' peril, too, but since you are using OP_RETURN you are particularly in the firing line). ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)@George203BTC @th_s4m0ht @maniac94846 83 bytes meant to support some kinds of financial transactions and not meant for, and incapable of, supporting most non-financial content e.g. images. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)Far greater moral and legal disputes will arise over OP_RETURN when it is carrying far more arbitrary unmoderatable content rather than predominantly just unmoderatable financial transactions. You get yourself mixed up with the coming flood of illegal content at your peril (and perhaps the rest of ours' peril, too, but since you are using OP_RETURN you are particularly in the firing line). ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)@SentientFreedom It's not about it being free (it's not), it's about the far greater moral and legal disputes that have and will arise when you are carrying arbitrary unmoderatable content rather than just unmoderatable financial transactions. ...

Risks Associated with Arbitrary Content - The core developers may be underestimating the risks and objections associated with arbitrary content compared to financial transactions [1] - Arbitrary content introduces a far greater and more unpredictable variety of risks and objections for node operators [1] - The primary concern is not the volume of content (spam), but the content itself [2] - Arbitrary content carries a vastly greater variety of legal risks and moral objections than financial transactions [2]