Are you saying that there is a technical reason that the blockchain can't be pruned so that the illegal data is removed? I don't know enough about the technical details, but I thought that nodes can run a pruned blockchain that complies with the protocols, but that wouldn't include those artifacts created by the ordinal inscriptions. What part of the transaction are the ordinal inscriptions in that can't be pruned?

I think that the ordinal inscriptions are annoying and somewhat harmful to Bitcoin, but not fatal so long as running a pruned node doesn't include them. If it's not possible to prune that data without a hard fork, then we might as well fork now since hoping that such an event won't happen is a horrible strategy, because it will happen if it's an effective attack, and it will likely happen at the worst time when people are fleeing to Bitcoin in large numbers to save themselves from inflation.

The part of the article I was talking about is this:

I don't know if that means that the content can be removed now, but I'm not so worried about that, so long as it could be removed with a change that doesn't require a hard fork. However, I did find this on ordinal inscriptions indicating that at least with ordinal inscriptions they can currently be removed:

https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/pros-cons-ordinals/


Personally, if this means that if all of the ordinal inscriptions get deleted I wouldn't mind at all because I think they are generally a bad idea and I think Bitcoin should only be used for currency and transactions. But, since it looks like they can't fundamentally poison the blockchain they seem to be annoying, but not harmful long-term.


I don't agree with this point. There is a fundamental difference between the blockchain and tor exit nodes, which is that with exit nodes the data is all encrypted and the person running the node has no way of knowing what traffic is going through the node. It's very different from a person downloading a file that contains illegal images that are unencrypted, they know are part of the file, and are relatively easy to view. There would be an excuse for new transactions that are authenticated that contain illegal material, but once they are identified, I think anyone holding on to the data must delete it or suffer legal consequences.


I agree that intent matters, but I don't trust any government to be fair if they have a strong incentive to weaponize the legal system that that government itself runs. I do believe that many governments are stupid enough to jail people just for running a node. And with some material, I think the general population would probably agree that they should be jailed. So I could very much imagine a situation where anyone who runs an unpruned node could reasonably be thrown in jail. For example, let's say people anonymously pay a pornographer to put illegal images on the blockchain. If there were no legal consequences to running a node with the illegal content on it, the customers could then run a full node and would have all that material available for them to view anytime they wanted to without any legal risk. The important part is that intent couldn't be determined in that case. The police wouldn't really be able to tell if their intent was running a full node as part of the Bitcoin network or to legally possess an illegal porn stash, so I think that eventually it could very well not be possible to have an unpruned copy of the Blockchain without serious legal risk.

The way I see it, it doesn't look good for the future of ordinal inscriptions because of that possibility, but I'm satisfied that that scenario doesn't threaten the future of Bitcoin as a currency, which is what I care about.

Thank you. Being new to Bitcoin, I had no idea this had already happened and been dealt with. This allowed me to answer get the answer to what I wanted to know but didn't know how to formulate the question. My fundamental question was can the illegal material be removed so that blockchain isn't corrupted without having to do a hard fork or something like that, and the answer is yes.

There's an article I found that addresses this issue pretty well: https://www.wired.com/story/why-porn-on-the-blockchain-wont-doom-bitcoin/

On Gamma.io I uploaded a 300kb, 1920 × 1200 photo that was fairly good quality and the fee to create the inscription was $113, and it was still smaller than the maximum size. So, if someone wanted to inscribe a sat with an illegal image of decent quality that they could definitely do it.

Ordinals are pretty new, so they probably haven't thought of it yet, but it's only a matter of time if it's a vulnerability.

I don't think anyone has yet, but what happens when they do? goatse was censored on Ordinals.com, but from what I understand it is now a permanent part of the Blockchain forever and accessible to anyone who has a copy of the blockchain and a viewer that doesn't sensor it. So the question no one is answering is what happens when actually illegal things are put into the Blockchain, rather than just gross things, making the blockchain itself illegal to have a copy of?

I'm hoping there's a way to either stop Ordinals before that happens or remove Ordinals from the blockchain after the fact without a hard fork or a totally new blockchain that isn't vulnerable in the same way.

I think you're missing the point here somewhat. There are different jurisdictions with varying degrees of loyalty to cryptocurrencies, but there is much less of a difference in jurisdictions when exploitative content is concerned, especially regarding children. For, example, let's say the U.S. dollar collapses. The U.S. may not like crypto currencies at that point and try to restrict them. However, El Salvador seems pretty good with crypto currencies and would benefit a lot by being friendly to crypto, especially if the U.S. isn't. However, I don't think even El Salvador would be okay with people there having and sharing child porn, so another crypto currency would be fine there, but Bitcoin would no longer be welcome.

So if it's just a case of a government, or even several governments being against crypto, the miners can always move to another jurisdiction that is friendly to crypto, but if it's a case where the Bitcoin blockchain contains content that is illegal in every jurisdiction, then there is no place to go. I'm not talking about cryptos in general. There's always some risk from governments to any crypto currency, and I'm fine with that because there are other jurisdictions. If Bitcoin is rendered unusable because no one can legally store its blockchain anywhere in the world, then another crypto currency will come along to replace it, but I want Bitcoin to survive.

I'm not talking about banning Bitcoin though. That's a different thing. Most governments can't ban Bitcoin because it would look too outright authoritarian if they did.

What I'm talking about is governments arresting people for possessing illegal content because they copied the Bitcoin blockchain if it contains illegal content. They haven't had that kind of excuse to get rid of Bitcoin before. They might not see Bitcoin as a problem now, but if it gives people an escape hatch out of the sinking dollar then they will care when they can't control people through money, and I'm worried the ordinal inscriptions will give them a justifiable excuse to get rid of Bitcoin. I'm sure that people could create a better crypto currency to fill that void, but I want Bitcoin to survive.

I'm new to Bitcoin, so I might not understand this situation well enough, in which case I would really appreciate some reassurance that Bitcoin is okay, because I am worried.

From what I understand, the so-called Bitcoin Ordinals are bits of data such as text or images that are inscribed on the Bitcoin blockchain itself, either whole or in parts for larger files, rather than a link to an asset like an NFT.

But what happens when a malicious actor inscribes illegal exploitative images, which then become part of the blockchain? If this happens, it would then become illegal to own a copy of the blockchain itself because of the images included in it. This would be a justifiable reason to make having a copy of the blockchain illegal in a way that most people would accept. Am I missing something? Is there a way to mine and use the blockchain without this inscribed data?

I can imagine malicious government actors doing this as a way to have an excuse for governments around the world to seize any computer with a copy of the blockchain and imprison the person who copied the blockchain because they knowingly possessed illegal exploitative images. It's one thing that Bitcoin can be used to buy such images, but it's quite another to have to possess such images in order to use Bitcoin. The way I see it, that could justifiably destroy the reputation of Bitcoin and make it very difficult for people to use and destroy its ability to become a viable currency standard for the world. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if it were just a link or a hash of an image or something to prove ownership, but when you have to actually have to download illegal files to use Bitcoin, it becomes a serious issue.

Please tell me I'm missing something with how this works and that it cannot be exploited this way. If not, what can be done about it? This whole Ordinal business has me very concerned that this will ruin the future of Bitcoin. I'm hearing a lot about high tx fees, traffic jams, a bloated chain and such, but I think all that misses the real threat to Bitcoin.