Ah, this old chestnut.<p>So from the last time this came up: <a href="https://thebitcoinnews.com/no-there-isnt-child-porn-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain/" rel="nofollow">https://thebitcoinnews.com/no-there-isnt-child-porn-on-the-b...</a><p>With the important bit here:<p><i>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.</i><p>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_.<p>This BBC article makes an interesting claim:<p><i>"In January, the amount of data that could be added to the BSV block chain was increased significantly.</i><p><i>Before that, people could generally add only short chunks of text or web links to the block chain.</i><p><i>But now it is possible to add full images in an encoded format."</i><p>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?<p>But hey, the BBC article is extremely light on details. Maybe this is something that can't be pruned so easily? Does anyone know?