Supporters of Bitcoin Knots have claimed that in recent months, future changes to Bitcoin Core releases will allow node operators to be opened up until legal attacks.
The basic argument is that op_return relays output of more than 83 bytes by default in Bitcoin Core Version 30, allowing users to upload illegal content such as child sexual assault material (CSAM) to Mempools on Bitcoin nodes.
The possibility of attackers uploading CSAM to the blockchain is far from a newly discovered attack vector, but Knott’s supporters argue that the general acceptance of larger OP_Return transactions on the network changes the implicit nature of manipulating a full node, creating a case of strong responsibility for a full node operator.
This is a shared perspective by many individuals related to Bitcoin (BTC) mining pool ocean.
Ocean founder and knot maintainer Luke Dashul went to the point where Bitcoin claimed “will” and “will.”It will no longer exist“If the Core V30 is widely adopted.
There is a lot of heated debate about this theory of social media, but there is limited opinion from actual lawyers who specialize in Bitcoin and related technologies.
So, to lend you much needed legal insight to be loaned out for discussion, Protos reached out to various legal experts to get their ideas.
Read more: Three despicable changes in Bitcoin Core V30 are confusing node operators
Summary (TL; DR)
- The general view from legal experts willing to comment is that the problem of potential CSAM materials that grow around the Bitcoin network is already present.
- Only one of the seven respondents showed that future changes to Bitcoin Core V30 could do practical harm.
- As one lawyer pointed out, the biggest threat may be about politicians who ultimately use politicians as vectors for political attacks. However, in reality, attack vectors already exist in many different forms.
It should be noted that none of these comments should be considered legal advice or official legal opinions.
Read more: Bitcoin Core vs Knot Disagreement is parabolic
Jael Ossovsky, Institute Fellow and Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Centre
According to Ossowski, “Amateur legal theory dogmatically endorsed by Bitcoiner’s specific swaths of the illegal content of blockchain serves as a justification for filtering than a reasonable legal analysis.”
He continued. “Most people can understand fringe cases and attack vectors, but that looks like a solution looking for problems rather than other methods.
“Specifically, that comes down to responsibility. Do nodes that review, copy and relay transaction data and blocks take responsibility for everything written and stored in that dataset?”
In Ossowski’s view, if there is a legal precedent or status that guides us, it is Section 230 and blockchain can be considered as an “interactive computer service.”
Therefore, he said, Nodernner We are not legally responsible for content generated by others.
“It’s a very simple case,” explained Ossowski. “We don’t have a reliable legal authority to seriously consider attaching responsibility for the automated processes that nodes take when dealing with Bitcoin.
“Some legal experts have discussed equating blockchains with copyright infringement or peer-to-peer file sharing, but they still do not technically resemble the way Bitcoin nodes work and how they work.”
Read more: Cøbra warns that knots can threaten Core’s reference status
Julian Driver, founder of the Bitcoin Act
“The direct liability claims are exaggerated as no court has ever found that firstly implementing a Bitcoin node would constitute the property or distribution of illegal material,” Farrer said.
“Although allowing more non-financial data on the chain increases the hypothetical risk, but that risk has always been there. Depending on how enthusiastic the prosecutor or lawmaker is, there may be a hypothetical responsibility for classifying the node distribution or incitement of violence.”
He continued. “CSAM is alone in that it has almost uniquely strict responsibility for mere ownership, but the fact remains that today nodes operate and all sorts of data represent theoretical attack vectors.
“The real threat to my opinion is the politicians who use these kinds of stories to attack the BTC for political purposes.
“Of course, this has already happened. For example, a recent attempt from American lawmakers is to link Bitcoin and crypto payments to terrorist financing.”
According to Farrar, “The best analogy is the famous ‘5-dollar wrench attack’.
“In this case, it’s not a wrench and the FBI knocks down the front door, but the essential point is the same. States can always come after the bitcoiner, either to run a node or for some other reason, unless there is the actual protection engraved in the law.”
He concluded, “That’s where I should focus on my opinion. Passing laws protecting the rights of bitcoiners, noderunners and open source developers.”
Read more: Does Michael Saylor Understand Bitcoin’s Core and Knot?
Patrick Gruhn, CEO of perpetuals.com and former Crypto Lawyers LLC partner
“The concerns about the default relay policy for the Bitcoin Core OP_Return transaction do not appear to be about the fundamental changes to Bitcoin, not about optics and perception,” Gruhn said.
“It is important to emphasize that this update will not change consensus rules. CSAM or any other data may already be embedded in the blockchain. That possibility has been around for years. Such content has been discovered in the past.
“The only distinction here is whether a node relays a particular op_return transaction by default. It’s not whether the network suddenly “allows them.” ”
“From a legal and regulatory perspective,” he explained.
“Regulators and courts are rarely interested in the subtlety of Bitcoin’s core default policies and consensus mechanisms. What they seize is a story of Bitcoin’s developers or node operators “expanding” the scope of illegal data storage.
“Even if it’s technically inaccurate, that framing can increase legal pressure and provide ammunition to critics.”
However, Grohn explained that the offensive side has not actually changed. “Participating Bitcoin for non-financial data storage is already possible.”
“The default shift in relays does not substantially increase the risk that CSAM enters the system. It simply affects propagation. The bigger legal challenge lies in the education of policymakers. The Bitcoin protocol is never designed to conclude the nature of arbitrary data and misunderstand the responsibility of node operators.
He argued that “regulatory optics are noteworthy, but this change “opens the door” and claims to new liability are largely FUD. The door was opened long ago. This is only a reminder of the importance of clear and positive communication about what Bitcoin is. And that’s not. ”
Read more: Bitcoin Core Developer Calls Dissident Notis and “Finding a Bug in Software”
Gabriel Shapiro, co-founder and CEO of Metalex
“In fact, we see more validity in the concerns of the knot crew,” Shapiro said. “I rate the overall risk as virtually low, but in theory their points make a lot of sense.
“Most of what (Bitcoin) mechanics are saying about this topic is actually a pretty good amateur rendition of Napster-style aid/compensation analysis.”
“Maybe it’s an attack vector,” he explained.
“It looks like a paranoia that would have made sense years ago — Even Gensler, who hated Crypto, liked Bitcoin.
“At this point, the nation is invested in BTC. They don’t want to dismantle Bitcoin, so I don’t see much practical risk in this.”
Coin Center
Coin Center does not understand how Bitcoin Core V30 will change the potential legal arguments against Bitcoin Node operators that have been opposed for years.
In response to Protos’ request for comments, a representative from the Coin Center pointed to a March 2018 blog post to address concerns about illegal images on the public blockchain.
Coin Center said the same argument still applies when asked to clarify whether any changes made to Bitcoin Core V30 would be changed.
Rafael Jacobi, managing partner of crypto lawyers
“I think the fear is exaggerated,” Jacobi said. “CSAM crimes generally require you to know your possession, receipt, distribution, or viewing intent.
“Automated relays usually don’t meet these factors (assuming I understand the mechanic I’m playing correctly) because there’s no evidence that the bitcoin node operators know they’re sending CSAM.”
Nameless Cryptocourt
The attorney, who had the strongest level of agreement and sympathy with Bitcoin Knot supporters, remained unnamed to this report and responded first.
“Long story, that’s a big concern. Hosting CSAM on a hard drive is a strict liability crime. That is, the fact that you host it, not the state of mind associated with that fact, creates criminal liability.
“This has been a known issue with distributed storage solutions over the years and I think it’s part of the reason why these solutions aren’t taking off. It doesn’t matter if your data is unencrypted, unencrypted, bytecode, etc.
“If you can convert it to illegal content, It’s illegal to host it. ”
They added: “I’m eager to this change. I just learned it when you told me about it. It’s even trivial to make the Bitcoin blockchain not legally waste globally.
“Luke is right, his core is wrong. That’s not a particularly close call.”
Read more: Bitcoin Core Development Schedule for October op_return Change
However, if Bitcoin Core version 30 was pushed to make the details clearer about how things change, the lawyers agreed that the issue already existed.
“Yes, that’s already a problem and the fact that this kind of attack hasn’t happened yet is more of a matter of luck than ability,” they said.
“It’s safer for Bitcoin to optimize content addressable links to off-chain content, such as IPFS hashing. Pruning reduces the risk of full nodes, but does not solve the regulatory issues of archive nodes.”
When asked to clarify whether Bitcoin knot supporters were correct in the Bitcoin Core Version 30 points, the lawyer responded:
“The more on-ramps you create to store large content blobs in Bitcoin, the more likely it is that one of those on-ramps will be misused for illegal purposes.”
They added: Ian Norson, entrusted to something like a match of piss between the sea and the rest of the bar.
“Ian’s perspective is completely reasonable to expect a competent lawyer to consider implementing a Bitcoin Archive Node and raise it to a client of a company or institution.
“The counterpoint of the legitimate process from lawyers such as Joe Carrasare, brought from a US perspective is a completely reasonable perspective that we expect to hear from appeal litigants.”
The lawyer also added that the side effects of illegal content becoming a problem on blockchain include tens of millions of dollars of legal costs for businesses across the industry, as well as the potential for hard forks.
In their view, future changes to Bitcoin Core V30 will effectively exacerbate the situation as it creates government censorship vectors by opening the door to more illegal content and finding a way to blockchain and/or node mempools.
“There are 195 countries around the world and Bitcoin is run by all of them,” they said.
“When serious illegal content begins to find its way to blockchain, it is a 195 separate compliance issues that companies trying to run Bitcoin nodes can have. Why core development teams want to create censorship vectors in the world’s most tolerant distributed cryptographic systems is beyond me, but fortunately, that’s not my problem.”
