And I think there is a schism there that the enthusiasm sometimes veils. Because something is technically possible does not mean that it implements easily in the world. If we want to reap the benefits of blockchain technology we need to acknowledge the disadvantages. /END

It just criminalizes the action. I'm not advocating this - I am merely trying to think about how authorities will react to this whole thing. And they will crack down. Turkey: they could outlaw IPFS - make the action of visiting wikipedia illegal. /2

I understand, but I am not making my point clear I suppose. I'm looking at this from a legislative angle, not a technical. So, it is possible to outlaw stealing but that doesn't make people unable to steal. /1

Well the content is still there but nobody knows where it is. But we need to think about how legislators, rights-holders and others will react. And I suspect hash-bans or something like that will be the response. Yes, it defeats the purpose - so does a DNS ban.

On the blockchain nobody knows if you're Kanye.

High quality trolling right here.

@NateStipe thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I think these things are very important to discuss before they become an issue.

Sure, that's how it work now with domain names/IP addresses as the equivalent to hashes. States "solve" this with DNS or IP bans for ISPs. A good-faith actor would probably implement a hash-ban system if they want to operate in a given country.

I understand and agree completely with your point about censorship. However, I think it is very important to consider the possible backlashes for someone who is not technical enough to cover up their traces.

And so the only way to effectively ban things saved to IPFS would be for some sort of authority to keep a record of IPFS hashes containing illegal stuff. And then the front-end providers could be required by law to implement filters against those hashes. 2/2 @NateStipe

Well it would in theory be possible for me to post something illegal right now and save it to both IPFS and the Ethereum blockchain and thus have made it an immutable part of the ledger, right? Subsequently I could get banned but the content would be forever there. 1/2

I feel like as we start using blockchain addresses for actual things like for @peepeth we are also leaving a very easy way for malicious types to audit what we do and where we do it. A very good reason imho to not use blockchain for all the things. Am I missing something?

Should the providers of the front-ends be the target of legislation in for example copyright issues? Or the users maybe? Maybe I'm thinking of this the wrong way?

OK, so the blocking of illegal/unwanted content in blockchain services like @peepeth is not possible except in the front-end layer, right? So how will states and legislators react to this? Because they will eventually.

I am a musician and composer and I have been using the internet as a scratch pad for my work, letting interested parties in to my process. I am looking for ways to continue to do this without having someone come in between me and my audience to monetise our interaction.