Does anyone know the answer? (Has @Luke Dashjr @Luke Dashjr addressed this question elsewhere?..) View quoted note →

I think there are broadly speaking two categories of Knots supporters. Category 1: Believes there is a moral difference between (illegal) data in OP_RETURNs vs. Inscriptions. This category includes @Luke Dashjr @Luke Dashjr. Category 2: “I don’t like spam, Luke doesn’t like spam, therefore I support Luke.” This category includes ~everyone else.

So my main takeaway from this discussion is that @Luke Dashjr @Luke Dashjr sees a legal and/or moral difference between data in OP_RETURNs and data in (say) Inscriptions. *Even if* it’s the exact same data! (The argument, to the best of my understanding, is that data in OP_RETURNs is “sanctioned” *as data* by Bitcoin Core now that the policy limit is lifted— whereas data in Inscriptions can only be “misinterpreted” as data.) It does make me wonder how many people in the Knots camp actually understand that this is the level of nuance they are ultimately fighting over. (It seemed that even @Bitcoin Mechanic kind of learned this live as they were recording…) View quoted note →

Seriously though, when I log into X, my feed is full of anti-Core posts from accounts I don’t know, don’t follow, and never even liked a tweet from. The outrage algorithm must be running hot.

I disapprove of what you inscribe, but I will defend with my node your right to inscribe it. Greg Maxwell edition:

Core and spam debate - easy explanation

Core and spam debate - easy explanation

Stating the obvious here, but… If filters work, and users don’t want Bitcoin Core 30, there’s no reason for an anti-OP_RETURN soft fork.