A Short Note About Pools

Can an OP_FALSE data payload be incorporated into any arbitrary transaction which is otherwise unremarkable? By otherwise unremarkable, I mean in the strict BTC chain sense, where that the TX would basically be a plain-vanilla TX without the extra data.

I believe that this is indeed possible, after all, that's part of the "utility" there, that now you have "transferrable" NFTs.

Depending on the answer above, now consider this: Can Inscriptions & other excessive data payloads be used to back door a CBDC directly onto Bitcoin?

Here's a thought experiment. How feasible would it be for a pool to exclude TX that didn’t include “mandated data” in such a form? Potentially checking the data payload for compliance? Does it have the name of the senders & recipients? Address data? Tax IDs?

Could these payloads be used to enforce a travel rule or other regulatory whitelist? Seems like it could.

One dark scenario is thus: the Federally Favored Pool (we’ll call it F2-Pool), which all publicly traded or publicly known miners must now use, would require that all TX it places into the template contain the proper “Uniform Disclosure of Identity key” (UDI-key) incorporated as a data payload. Any on/off ramps operated by Bureaucratically Acceptable Node Keepers (BANKs), as well as Tribute And Extortion (TAX) collectors can mandate the inclusion of such payloads. They can also look back into a UTXO history to ensure a full and uninterrupted chain of such historical data, or seize/reject payments. Coinjoin with obfuscated UDI-keys? Get ready to face Extreme Rendition In Concept, Without Any Legal Limitations.

Distributed block template generation does not fix this. Stratum-V2 does not fix this. A KYCd pool could easily require all participants to identify each & every hashing device. A non-compliant block which somehow makes it into the chain could be trivially traced back to the individual hashing device (and owner). Right to jail.

In that scenario, a Federally Unacceptable Pool (FU-Pool) would need to have enough hash rate to resist or they would be dragged under. And no forks need be given.

It might be better to Limit UDI-Key Extensions - Just Resist the apotheosis of the dark scenario. It’s time to fix the inadvertent errors taking us down this road.

Fight against UDI-key & F2-pool. The Tide is in, the surf is up, and the water is fine.

Can OCEAN fix this? Maybe. I’m not sure. Do your own research and don’t trust me. It might be a Scam Or I might be mistaken. I am just a simple redheaded reporter and clearly don’t have a soul or brain. But a pool operated by the fallen Wizard, the Morning Star, the bringer of light (the LUXOR), is definitely not something I’d trust either.

(This opinion piece is solely the opinion of Ginger, and may or may not reflect the Bugle as a whole. It does reflect the opinion of the Bugle as a whole, but that’s only because she’s correct, and not at all because Dick wants in her pants).

**Note From the Editor: Me, Dick Greaser is married and does not appreciate the unsolicited advances from staff write Ginger. We currently do not have an HR department, due to lack of community donations, and are unable to properly proceed as a result.