I mean if you can't erase the data and keep publishing it, some would say you are liable.
I see that as a particularly twisted legal argument, but couldn't some country use that against blockchain infrastructure if they feel like it?
I mean if you can't erase the data and keep publishing it, some would say you are liable.
I see that as a particularly twisted legal argument, but couldn't some country use that against blockchain infrastructure if they feel like it?
For more information, please see:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Illegal_content_in_the...
To quote:
It is illegal in some countries to possess/distribute certain
kinds of data. Since arbitrary data can be included in Bitcoin
transactions, and full Bitcoin nodes must normally have a copy of
all unspent transactions, this could cause legal
problems. However, Local node policy generally doesn't permit
arbitrary data (transactions attempting to embed data re
non-standard), but steganographic embedding can still be used
though this generally limits storage to small amounts. Various
ideas have been proposed to further limit datastorage in the UTXO
set but are not currently being seriously considered for
deployment.Example: All the text for the blog posts here are pulled via api from data encoded into UTXOs in the dogecoin blockchain: http://dogeyip.com/blog.html
There are enough different parties involved that acquiring consensus to make historical changes is practically impossible. The data that is there, at least several blocks prior to the current block, is permanent.
An attempt to do this would scare the market, affecting the value of bitcoin. The miners don't want that, so they will act in their greedy self-interest - which means they won't attempt to do such a thing.
I mean if Bitcoin ever gain real traction isn't it pretty inefficient to store all the data and replicate it around? Storage now seem infinite but practicality it is not, won't current blockchain be saturated to the point of uselessness when/if it reach usage level of an actual banking network?
"Let think about scaling later" is maybe not a good idea for a currency implementation...
A hundred years from now, you could store the blockchain on current day hardware. And that is without talking about improvements in technology.
Now to be more accurate it might rather be a growth according to a logistic curve. Right now Bitcoin is used only by early adopters, but should Bitcoin usage diffuse among general customers it will growth quasi exponentially before plateauing.
This is definitely not linear, and keep it mind it's only with a small amount of early adopter that they reached 125 Go mark.
As a matter of comparaison the whole database of the earth map at openstreetmap.org is as of writing only 36 Go fat when delivered in compressed form. https://planet.openstreetmap.org/pbf/
It seems absolutely ridiculous and a waste of ressource to expect that the blockchain shall never/ever use some rotating process to loose weight at some point.
Blockchain like technology can be very usefull, but current implementation look like a very rotten seed. And if a newer version that solve those issue emerge why on earth would they want to give any value to a prototype currency driven by opportunistics "first in" miners?
I desperately hope that no public fund was stupid enough to invest any real life saving to this mess because IMHO it's not a matter of if, but a matter of when it will collapse.
I mean... its happened before and you had no idea
Its still in bitcoin's blockchain. There's lots of stuff in there.