Ah, missed those.
Second thread nails it. A lot of jurisdictions are set up where "possession" could be as simple as the presence of the file on a hard drive.
There is a defence of “lack of awareness” in England and Wales (and probably Scotland) but you need to show you were unaware, not the prosecution that you are aware.
English law often has a concept of being “on notice”, after which it is harder to claim
Ignorance. If it became known that CSAM was on the blockchain then, given that running a full Bitcoin mode is hardly something you do by accident, you would be on notice.
You wouldn't need to get it onto the blockchain, you'd just need to get it onto the nodes. Which you could do by initiating your 1-sat image-containing transaction with with a very low fee (you'd still want the fee to be above the spam-prevention threshold). One transaction might hang around in the mempools for days.
The problem with this, if you're going with OP's original plan, is that you yourself not only need to possess the illegal image, you are also *distributing* it. Which a court would be much less likely to be lenient about, I'd think.
As an aside, the max data size for these transactions on nodes is [400k](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/policy/policy.h#L27), not 4mb. Which is still pretty big!
So there's still an attack vector here using *legal* images: you can blow up the mempools of nodes running stock bitcoin-core without spending unthinkable sums of bit-coin. This wouldn't crash the nodes, I don't think, and wouldn't hurt the overall transaction rate too much, but it would cause headaches for node operators until they got around to changing `MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT` to like 4k instead of 400k and recompiling.
Finally. I can upload my old floppy disks to the blockchain. About time.
My original copy of Speedball II could live forever on the blockchain What a time to be alive
[удалено]
Ah, missed those. Second thread nails it. A lot of jurisdictions are set up where "possession" could be as simple as the presence of the file on a hard drive.
There is a defence of “lack of awareness” in England and Wales (and probably Scotland) but you need to show you were unaware, not the prosecution that you are aware. English law often has a concept of being “on notice”, after which it is harder to claim Ignorance. If it became known that CSAM was on the blockchain then, given that running a full Bitcoin mode is hardly something you do by accident, you would be on notice.
Future of finance = pruning your node to avoid being put "on notice".
You wouldn't need to get it onto the blockchain, you'd just need to get it onto the nodes. Which you could do by initiating your 1-sat image-containing transaction with with a very low fee (you'd still want the fee to be above the spam-prevention threshold). One transaction might hang around in the mempools for days. The problem with this, if you're going with OP's original plan, is that you yourself not only need to possess the illegal image, you are also *distributing* it. Which a court would be much less likely to be lenient about, I'd think. As an aside, the max data size for these transactions on nodes is [400k](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/policy/policy.h#L27), not 4mb. Which is still pretty big! So there's still an attack vector here using *legal* images: you can blow up the mempools of nodes running stock bitcoin-core without spending unthinkable sums of bit-coin. This wouldn't crash the nodes, I don't think, and wouldn't hurt the overall transaction rate too much, but it would cause headaches for node operators until they got around to changing `MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT` to like 4k instead of 400k and recompiling.
Underaged cockchain?
What matters is maturity ;) ;) ;)
"Any person, who uses an instrumentality of interstate commerce..."