Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

uncooked information – Is it doable/possible for nodes to redact data (for instance inappropriate pictures) of their blockchain and stay a part of the community?

Is it doable/possible for nodes to redact data (for instance inappropriate pictures) of their blockchain and stay a part of the community?

Sidenote:

Though OP_RETURN was meant for embedding small quantities of knowledge, I imagine virtually all instances of embedding of pictures within the final 12 months use OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_ENDIF inside an in any other case regular script in a witness element. This avoids limitations imposed on OP_RETURN and positive aspects the Segwit low cost on transaction charges.

Censoring transactions:

Pruning nodes discard blocks which have been validated and whose content material is now not needed for sustaining UTXO state. It should be possible to be selective and have particular standards to discard information that’s undesirable. For Bitcoin Core I think about it’d necessitate rewriting massive blockfiles or some technique reminiscent of overwriting parts with say zeroes and updating indexes accordingly.

Not relaying unconfirmed transactions of this type has been steered. As Michael Folkson commented, massive pictures (e.g. a number of MB) already cannot be relayed by Bitcoin core nodes due to its default coverage guidelines. publishers of huge pictures should make direct preparations with miners.

Nonetheless, the above nonetheless requires that nodes obtain and validate new blocks, no matter content material, as a way to preserve UTXO state. So the objective can’t be fully achieved.

I imagine it is usually computationally infeasible for regular nodes to tell apart inappropriate pictures from acceptable pictures. Moreover, Individuals who embed such pictures can take countermeasures to forestall their detection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *