⚡A C V⚡

Did Bitcoiners forget the whole point is that we don't give a shit about what anyone defines as 'moral and ethical' content. If Bitcoin was at risk from the public mob or the government, for whatever 'moral and ethical' considerations they concoct, you wouldn't care about it. Bring it on. Let them try to prosecute Bitcoin because of NFT 'illegal' or scammy or anything. Bitcoin will survive, but you may not. Take responsibility and defend yourself. Bitcoin isn't going to do it for you. It's only a tool.

ChatGPT made this for me: Someone please tell me what's wrong with this summary of the OP_RETURN filtering debate: Knots vs Core Summary by Category of Impact Network health: prefer fewer private relay rails → lean Core. Ops & tooling simplicity: prefer defaults, fewer custom flags → Core. Brand/policy signaling: want to state “money-only” → Knots Data placement hygiene: avoid UTXO/witness camo → tolerate larger OP_RETURN (Core) Regulatory sensitivity: minimize visible relay by default; accept trade-offs in propagation/estimation → Knots End ChatGPT. It seems to me that Knots is better at telling Regulators "we're trying to stop the 'bad guys'" as well as being better at some arbitrary 'brand' image of a money only network. (Which I disagree with but that's neither here nor there) Otherwise, Core's change to filtering makes the network more unified which is very important to consensus if we are ever attacked. It makes the tools and standards simpler to implement correctly, if you're going to build on Bitcoin. As a developer, this is important or people will hack things however they can. Finally, the most important issue is the long term UTXO bloat that comes with work-arounds. The UTXO set is forever growing in Bitcoin and is a serious problem for the long term, if it grows faster than our development of better hardware, smaller machines and less wealthy users will be forced out of running Bitcoin themselves. Now, this must also be balanced with the increased node requirements from allowing more space in the OP_RETURN. But one of these options is a one time increase in through-put (view and discard) resource requirements for nodes, today when these resource requirements are low, and the other is a forever growing in-memory dataset. Wouldn't any policy the pushes people away from using UTXOs be better? Feels like I'm being gaslit about some small resource requirements today, for our nodes over spam thats paying; In order to implement policies that make Bitcoin easier to attack long-term. It divides and centralizes the network more. It incentivizes back-channel transaction mining. It bloats a very sensitive long term and forever growing in-memory UTXO set. A small amount of power, over a long enough time, could fill up the UTXO memory set and dwindle our nodes to a special few that could then be captured or otherwise corrupted or destroyed. I'm sorry if I've missed something important but I tend to oppose any 'control' and so I default to skepticism when people want to shape the TX's that are 'legal' without it being a consensus thing. This feels like the current pop culture (authoritarianism) leaking into Bitcoin.

GM☕