In recent discussions, advocates of Bitcoin Knots have expressed concerns that an upcoming modification in Bitcoin Core could expose node operators to legal challenges.
The crux of the argument is that OP_RETURN outputs exceeding 83 bytes, which will be relayed by default in the forthcoming Bitcoin Core version 30, might enable users to upload unlawful content like child sexual abuse material (CSAM) into the mempools of Bitcoin nodes.
Although attackers potentially uploading CSAM to the blockchain isn’t a novel threat, proponents of Knots argue that accepting larger OP_RETURN transactions alters the inherent nature of operating a full node and increases liability risks for full node operators.
This perspective has been echoed by many associated with Ocean, a bitcoin mining pool strongly supporting Bitcoin Knots software thus far.
Luke DashJr, founder of Ocean and maintainer for Knots, has even suggested that if Core v30 gains widespread adoption, it could spell doom for Bitcoin’s existence.
Despite heated debates on social media regarding this theory, input from legal experts specializing in blockchain technology remains scarce. To address this gap and provide essential legal perspectives on these concerns raised by Protos reached out to various legal authorities for their insights.
Summary (TL;DR)
The consensus among willing legal experts is that potential proliferation issues related to CSAM within the network are pre-existing. Only one out of seven respondents believed changes in v30 would cause any practical harm. One lawyer noted politicians might exploit this issue as a political tool; however existing attack vectors already take multiple forms.
Please note these comments should not be considered official or binding legal advice or opinions
Bitcoin Policy Institute Fellow & Consumer Choice Center Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski
Accordingly stated Ossowski: “The amateurish theories promoted about illegal content being stored on blockchains serve more as justifications than actual analyses.” He continued saying most people understand fringe cases but view them as solutions searching problems rather than vice versa.
He further explained: “It ultimately boils down towards liability—whether nodes verifying/copying/relaying transaction data/block information bear responsibility over everything stored therein?” In his opinion if there exists any guiding precedent/status then Section 230 applies whereby every blockchain qualifies under ‘interactive computer service’ classification hence absolving noderunners legally responsible generating others’ contents.”
Ossowski elaborated stating no credible authority seriously considers attaching liabilities automatic processes undertaken during handling bitcoin transactions adding some equate blockchains piracy/P2P sharing though technologically dissimilar operational mechanics involved here too.”
The Crypto Lawyers Managing Partner Rafael Yakobi
Yakobi opined fears were exaggerated explaining crimes involving CSAM typically necessitate knowing possession/distribution/intention viewing absent evidence proving otherwise automated relays usually fail satisfying requisite elements assuming correct understanding underlying mechanics.”
An Unnamed Crypto Lawyer’s Perspective
A lawyer who agreed most closely aligned sympathies towards Knot supporters preferred anonymity when responding initially summarizing huge concern hosting CSAM hard drives constitutes strict liability offense triggering criminality irrespective mental state association fact hosting such materials.” They added appalled learning change claiming trivializing single bad actor rendering entire global basis unhostable thereby siding Luke against core developers decisions unequivocally without doubt.”
When pressed specifics whether changes worsen situations admitted existing problem attributing non-occurrence past luck opposed capabilities suggesting optimizing offchain links safer alternative pruning reducing albeit not eliminating risks archival purposes highlighting compliance burdens across countries worldwide where bitcoin operates posing separate regulatory challenges confronting companies running archive nodes globally questioning rationale behind creating censorship vectors within world’s foremost resistant distributed cryptosystem ultimately concluding fortunate responsibility lies elsewhere namely core development teams themselves.”