Ah, this old chestnut. So from the last time this came up: https://thebitcoinnews.com/no-there-isnt-child-porn-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain/ https://thebitcoinnew

Ah, this old chestnut. So from the last time this came up: https://thebitcoinnews.com/no-there-isnt-child-porn-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain/ https://thebitcoinnews.com/no-there-isnt-child-porn-on-the-b... With the important bit here: 80 bytes is all that OP_RETURN can store, and what’s more that information is subject to deletion. That’s because bitcoin nodes are capable of pruning “provably unspendable” UTXOs for efficiency, which include OP_RETURN data. TL;DR the last time the schadenfreudists were looking for something to point and laugh at on this front, they didn't understand the technicalities of what they were talking about _at all_. This BBC article makes an interesting claim: "In January, the amount of data that could be added to the BSV block chain was increased significantly. Before that, people could generally add only short chunks of text or web links to the block chain. But now it is possible to add full images in an encoded format." I've never heard of this BSV coin before, so I don't know the details of this change. Assuming it's a fork of bitcoin and all they did was increase the allowable size of the OP_RETURN, this will once again be sensationalist reporting with no substance. I'd imagine the first thing BSV nodes would do is prune the OP_RETURN garbage because who wants to be paying the storage cost of other peoples embedded images? But hey, the BBC article is extremely light on details. Maybe this is something that can't be pruned so easily? Does anyone know?