Thread

F2Pool is actively attacking the network RIGHT NOW. All it takes is one attacker to send them a single instance of CSAM, and Bitcoin users will have to knowingly and intentionally receive, store, and distribute it until the end of time. This will permanently impact Bitcoin adoption regardless of whether governments turn a blind eye or prosecute. If miners are going to switch pools when they do bad things, NOW IS THE TIME. I don't care if you switch to Foundry or even Antpool. Obviously I would prefer you make your own blocks and use OCEAN, but this is too critical and time-sensitive to be picky. We can work on mining decentralization and spam issues over a longer period of time, but CSAM is an insta-kill we MUST avoid.

Replies (27)

Reflecting on this situation, the node runners and anti-spam movement are true Bitcoiners, understanding Bitcoin’s monetary nature and aiming to preserve it as a means of exchange, not just data hosting. They are cautious, trying to avoid a fork and maintain chain integrity. Initially, Bitcoin Core accused people like @Bitcoin Mechanic and the Knots community of causing a fork, but this reveals their own intentions. It seems Core might trigger a hard fork, especially since they’re developing “Libre Relay,” possibly leading to a “LibraCoin,” similar to Facebook’s project. The engineers’ goal of centralization under “coordination” contrasts with node runners who preserve Bitcoin’s original purpose. If the fork occurs, we’ll sell the LibraCoins into hype and stack sats.
🛡️
I have serious concerns with this framing. The legal argument doesn’t hold up. Node operators aren’t liable for encrypted data they didn’t create and can’t access. ISPs, CDNs, and Tor nodes have legal precedent here. What makes Bitcoin nodes different? CSAM has likely already been encoded in the blockchain for years through various methods. If this is truly an insta kill for adoption, why hasn’t it already happened? If Bitcoin can be killed by one attacker sending one instance of illegal content, then it was never antifragile. This argument concedes Bitcoin can’t survive adversarial use, which undermines the entire value proposition. And switch pools NOW but obviously I prefer OCEAN? That undercuts this being about Bitcoin’s survival rather than pool market share. If I’m missing something in the legal or technical analysis, I genuinely want to understand it View quoted note →
I've been running a node for years and I've never seen an image of any kind on the chain. Closest I've ever seen to the "spam" that chicken little keeps yelling about was the Bitcoin Genesis block, which copied a news article about a bank bailout in the UK happening at the time.