One thing you should consider is that if you are going to have a blockchain implementation then it would be best to separate the "content" from the chain (e.g. just keep the hash of the content in the block that is stored).

In this way any content can be deleted if required as you would not want people using the system to end up in jail due to unwittingly having "illegal content" stored on their computer.

Of course you could just encrypt all stored content but authorities can demand your password so that isn't necessarily the safest approach.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1504662.msg15717392#msg15717392

The absolute nonsense is those that won't accept the failure and the "guarantee" that was made.

(read those terms very closely - and then read them again please)

There were a number of minor issues although they were not so much security but things like an AT being able to be "stuck" or the like (there may still be some minor issues waiting to be found of course but we have found no major issue in around 2 years of live operations so I'd be very surprised if one will appear with the current implementation).

Agreed it needs more people trying to attack it (unfortunately we don't have much to spend on promotion) - an upcoming "challenge" to steal from the Crowdfund AT is going to be issued so hopefully we'll have some hackers try to steal (and hopefully they'll fail as there won't be any "hard forks" to change the outcome).

The approach taken by AT (the smart contract system used by Qora and Burst) does not suffer from such pitfalls as one contract cannot "call" another but instead can only send funds or a message in the same manner as any other "account" can.

This AT design approach was done on purpose after I had read Vitalik's paper (as I saw potential "red flags").

The problem with anything that is "off the chain" is that you can't guarantee that it has been stored (although other storage blockchains do now exist so the OP might want to investigate those).

As I pointed out it would be extremely expensive to store a whole lot of information in the blockchain as it would need to be cut up into 80 byte chunks (each appearing in a separate tx) which you can't even easily guarantee the order (unless you're putting meta-data in those 80 bytes chunks which reduces the storage even further).

I think we can all agree that Bitcoin wasn't designed for data storage and for the most part the OP_RETURN is only useful for the storage of hashes of data or very small messages.

You can only have a *single* OP_RETURN per tx - so there is no issue with multiple outputs.

The data that follows an OP_RETURN can be safely pruned so it will not be "stored forever" (unlike UTXO data that has to be kept).

The entire reason for OP_RETURN is to provide a way where people can store some extra data per tx but which cannot be relied upon to be kept by all nodes.

Because you can only store 80 bytes per tx it isn't a very cheap way to store information and this is why services exist that store hashes for information instead of the information (which would make sense for things like documents).

There are no mainnet sidechains even running yet - so recommending people to use such things makes no sense.

My understanding in regards to LN is that those "off-chain" txs are still standard (and will presumably be SegWit ready) Bitcoin transactions that will be using both the nLocktime and nSequence mechanisms.

The nLocktime mechanism is what "opens" the channel and determines how long the channel will be opened for.

The use of nSequence will be particularly useful for streaming kinds of service - you might pay say 0.001 BTC for 1 second of streaming and assuming you keep on paying (with the same UTXOs but a new nSequence) then you continue to stream up until the point that you stop paying (at which point the vendor just needs to broadcast the final tx and it won't matter if you've tried to broadcast one or more earlier txs as the nSequence will mean that the last tx replaces those).

The key thing in this case is that there might be literally tens of thousands of txs created and broadcast that will never appear in the main network (only one or perhaps more txs if someone is trying to cheat). This is how massive scaling might be achieved without having ridiculously large blocks (I say "might" as we are yet to see how this pans out and whether or not streaming services will be using it).

I'm not really sure how these mechanisms can help with the asset idea though (perhaps others might be able offer some insight).

Fine - but it is rather silly to even have a discussion about a technical impossibility (such as "infinite xxx").

In any case I'll now leave this topic for those that aren't interested in reality and technical limitations.

Again - that does not make anything "infinite" which was the point of my post (please don't ignore the point and go off on a tangent).

If you're not interested in having meaningful technical discussion in your topic then I'll simply refrain from posting in it.

People who brag about "infinite divisibility" don't know anything about computer software (thus they can be safely ignored). Computers can't do anything infinitely apart from "loop" (which is often what people might refer to as seeing an application "freeze").

It would be possible to extend Bitcoin's divisibility but that would still be "finite" (and in fact it could be extended by a few extra decimals without even changing the 64 bit data type).

If satoshis really became valuable in the far future (and not just considered as dust) then perhaps this would happen, however, I very much doubt this is going to happen in the near future.

(this post is to just clarify that "infinite" is the wrong word to be using)

And what I am pointing out is that the relevance that Bitcoin has to "child porn" is about as much as say "PayPal" (although in all likelihood less).

So if PayPal aren't doing anything (specifically) then why does Bitcoin need to be doing something?

For the most part people who are buying or selling BTC are using exchanges that are actually quite regulated (so it is actually not at all comparable to the "wild west" of the US during the "gold rush").

To even create a topic with "child porn" in it just indicates that this topic is nonsense (perhaps the OP likes that sort of thing).

What are the people that find gold doing in this regard?

Why are you expecting that Bitcoin should have more responsibility than *any* fiat currency that exists?

Basically you should be calling for the end of the internet as those nasty images you are complaining about are sent using it!
(oh - not going to blame the internet?)

Complete nonsense posted above.

There are simply "no universally agreed upon laws" so you can't try and apply such a non-existent concept to Bitcoin.
(are you a government lacky of some sort?)

Again - where are these universal laws about gold?
(surely they would form the basis of what you are wanting to see)

Seriously - if you think all transactions in the world should be traceable then you surely think that the major focus should be upon uncut diamonds and precious metals (they are of far more significance than Bitcoin is).

So once you have succeeded in preventing all other money laundering then maybe we look at Bitcoin (as there is no evidence to suggest that Bitcoin is used much for that at all).

It is pretty clear that the idiots making these posts are working for authorities (who don't mind staying corrupt but just don't want to risk losing power).

And where are all the links to people that have sold child porn for USD (or you seemingly have *none* of those at all)?

If you want to be taken seriously then why not try and be honest for a start (you are not)?

Yes you are trying to be clever because you are trying to insinuate that no child porn has been sold for USD (and I don't think that anyone on this forum is going to believe that).

This is a seriously flawed topic.

Bitcoin's economy is not even a sizeable fraction of the USD or any other major currency so to try and imply that it has somehow had some major affect upon something like "child porn" (with zero evidence) is just crap.

If the OP has actual "proof" that Bitcoin is used more than USD or other major currencies then please provide it.

You are making zero sense.

If you want to control everything then you should control the USD and all other cash - is that your goal?

(and if that is not your goal then why on earth are you picking on Bitcoin that is a fraction of the USD being used for "child porn" and any other illegal thing you can think of)

Oh - "the humanity" and "what about the children".

Guys - do you know that gold can be used as a medium of payment for "child porn".

I suggest you try and get gold banned immediately worldwide!
(and in fact all money - as surely any money could be used to procure child porn)

So what exactly is it that you are saying?

You know that USD is the major currency for child porn but you think that people should hate BTC because it "possibly could be used" for the same thing?

Your point has no point - it is just stupid (perhaps you are paid to make such stupid posts here).

So show us the "proof" that factories based upon BTC (and not USD) are the major creators of child porn please.

(my guess is you can't do that because it is just bullshit that you have made up)