OFAC-Sanctioned Transactions Being Censored

[HmmMAA]

IMHO, it was a mistake on Satoshi's part designing Bitcoin is such a way to also include arbitrary data (i.e. the bank bailout message), not just financial transactions.

If I had it my way, BTC's blockchain would store ONLY financial transactions (this is possible with Mimblewimble which makes the blockchain very lightweight, i.e. BEAM, GRIN) and there would be a separate, optional blockchain (sidechain if you will) to store text messages, photos, audio files, videos (even DVD movies) etc.

Unfortunately it's too late to do that, nobody will accept a hard fork.

Damn , that satoshi dude is such a braindead ignorant , he should have ask advise from cryptosize how network should be coded . If we consider that cryptosize knew about bitcoin since 2003 it was a great opportunity to have a network as the mastermind wants it to be .
What a clown .

[1715033114]

1715033114

[1715033114]

1715033114

[1715033114]

1715033114

[1715033114]

1715033114

[o_e_l_e_o]

I am skeptic of their reliability

You just need to look at the court case of Roman Sterlingov for proof of how completely unreliable they are. Chainalysis had to admit under oath that they have absolutely zero scientific process underlying any of their methods, that they have absolutely zero proof that any of their methods work as advertised, and they have no data at all on how many false positives they generate. In other words, the entire thing is little more than guesswork.

I know this goes against Bitcoin's censorship-resistant principles, but it's for the best if we want low fees again.

OFAC-sanctioned transactions, on the other hand, are another story. Miners shouldn't censor these transactions just because the US government wants to.

So in summary - censorship you agree with should be allowed, but censorship you don't agree with should be banned.

Can you not see how this is a problematic statement to make? Bitcoin is either censorship resistant, or it isn't. Allowing some censorship that some users think is ok opens the door to any and all censorship.

[franky1]

mining pools in early 2011+ were just brands of software services,

however recently. mining pools are registering as financial businesses, by which regulations then apply

developers are enhancing/upgrading "stratum" software to allow 'workers'(asic owners) to use their home bitcoind to make a full blocktemplate and transaction list separate from a mining pool so that it takes the requirement of transaction selection out of pool managers hands,

[cryptosize]

IMHO, it was a mistake on Satoshi's part designing Bitcoin is such a way to also include arbitrary data (i.e. the bank bailout message), not just financial transactions.

If I had it my way, BTC's blockchain would store ONLY financial transactions (this is possible with Mimblewimble which makes the blockchain very lightweight, i.e. BEAM, GRIN) and there would be a separate, optional blockchain (sidechain if you will) to store text messages, photos, audio files, videos (even DVD movies) etc.

Unfortunately it's too late to do that, nobody will accept a hard fork.

Damn , that satoshi dude is such a braindead ignorant , he should have ask advise from cryptosize how network should be coded . If we consider that cryptosize knew about bitcoin since 2003 it was a great opportunity to have a network as the mastermind wants it to be .
What a clown .

HmmMAA is a butthurt BSV fanatic/big blocker, don't mind him...

[Abiky]

So in summary - censorship you agree with should be allowed, but censorship you don't agree with should be banned.

Can you not see how this is a problematic statement to make? Bitcoin is either censorship resistant, or it isn't. Allowing some censorship that some users think is ok opens the door to any and all censorship.

Yes. That's why I've pointed out this would be a subject of constant debate within the community. Either allow Ordinals on-chain and OFAC-sanctioned transactions or all the other way around. As much as I hate high fees, there's nothing we can do other than wait until the hype is over. Rejecting Ordinals just because they increase network congestion, is not a good idea.

Ultimately, the community will decide what's best for Bitcoin in the long run. I only hope BTC stays decentralized and censorship-resistant to prove itself a viable alternative against Fiat. Otherwise, it would be the end of an era for financial freedom and privacy. The future is unpredictable, so lets hope for the best.