I don't follow the point you are making. Changes equals bad because ???? If those changes are the removal of choice then sure but they aren't so, what are you trying to say? Also, I responded to this post as well, so you can read that as well.

How is that not user choice? Bitcoin core is making decisions that node runners do not agree with and forcing their decisions by removing the settings That is Fed behavior that’s handcuffing the node runner to Bitcoin core’s ideology. Talk about dodging questions. There is only one question Why did they remove the user settings? For the record the only reason I switched to knots is because Core was going to and has since I switched, removed user settings. I don’t give a fuck who wrote what the code base is 99% the same except with Knots I have more choice. Bitcoin core is literally going down the same path ethereum went down. When I first switch to Knots someone I know from Nostr who had run an ethereum validator in the past told me the same stuff you and JB have been saying. I asked him why he stopped running his validator and he said the storage got to big. I said thank you and thought the discussion was over. He still didn’t understand so explained to him like a 5 year old. If the blockchain gets to big to fast no one will run it expect for Feds, Institutions, and spammers and Bitcoin will fully evolve into Bit Suit. That’s what core is championing for a bloated blockchain covered with spam. Core is aligned with Ethereum people like J Slopp. In fact ethereum puts the “e” in Core.

You can run an old version of core with the choice still available to you. All implementations of core are backwards compatable. It seems safer than running something different with all sorts of potentially problematic changes and while declaring it does not matter that the individual advocating this drastic measure no longer has a financial motive for bitcoins success, a big old axe to grind and has opened a communication channel with the feds. But that's just my opinion the choice is yours. Also it raises red flags when people say a project, that is working perfectly fine, is completely doomed unless I alone am allowed to fix it. And when pressed for specific answers I get rambling deflections. In other words knots has been saying Bitcoin is doomed unless we all switch to knots but when pressed for specifics on how Bitcoin will fail the argument falls flat. imho. Footage of knots saving bitcoing

Are you saying the reason core 30 is bad is because the amount of storage required to run a nodewill be too high?

I don't say those things so, maybe just address concerns that I put forward. I would be a fan of Libbitcoin, if it actually worked (it doesn't). The point is all of the "changes" Luke makes are also toggles or fields that give users choice. I don't care if luke is a federal agent's prostitute if the code he writes gives me choice and it's open for audit. So, continually bringing up feds, spam prevention, and lost bitcoin is immaterial to the actual discussion. I DON'T CARE. The discussion is one group just updated the swiss army knife with 3 less screwdrivers and a different group added 5 more. I like more options not less. That's it.

Are you reading a completely separate text then responding, or being obtuse? This is so weird. I have spoken with voice to a lot of these people and now it seems like people are reading from a sales script. I want a sharp knife to cut my beef -Do you worry about intruders because a knife wouldn't even stop them anyway! No, I want to cut my food. -You COULD cut your food with a spoon, do you really trust cutlery made by a guy who accidentally cut his thumb once!? What the fuck is happening?

My concern is that the toggle fields/choices are a distraction. And the real changes are under the radar so yes it matters the character as well as the motivations of those who write them. The old saying "sometimes the cure is worse than the disease" comes to mind. This is Bitcoin, there are no regulators we are on our own and I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet based on what I know. Don't trust verify right? And from what my limited understanding tells me knots is selling their users a bill of goods.

So is that a yes? I'm still confused ..

Dude, just read the code. Tell me where Luke put the "GET EM FEDS!" variable. If he did, I would be right there with you. But I haven't found it and neither have you (or else you'd be citing code lines instead of making moralistic or equivocation arguments).

In a technical sense mempool allocations are strictly RAM. So storage has nothing to do with it. But, again this is a nonsense argument conflating two separate issues. Relaying transactions and relaying verified blocks. The node does both but one is protocol forced and the other is not. That is where the choice lies.

he said: "When I first switch to Knots someone I know from Nostr who had run an ethereum validator in the past told me the same stuff you and JB have been saying. I asked him why he stopped running his validator and he said the storage got to big. I said thank you and thought the discussion was over. He still didn’t understand so explained to him like a 5 year old. If the blockchain gets to big to fast no one will run it expect for Feds, Institutions, and spammers and Bitcoin will fully evolve into Bit Suit. " So I don't think I'm conflating anything. I'm just responding to what was said. From reading this it sounds like disk space is the issue which is what I asked for clarification on and again it's sounding like a "yes". He also said "Core is aligned with Ethereum people like J Slopp." Which is... Pretty funny honestly. And accurate. I think I get it. Disk space is one large issue but the bigger picture is worrying that Bitcoin becomes ethereum. If that is the issue I'm not so worried about that either because ethers original sin was being premined, then it was the dao rollback demonstrating it's mutability and lack of centralization, and final nail in the coffin was proof of work. (And not to mention of course selling out to jp Morgan). Bitcoin has none of that baggage and to think it's going to turn into eth overnight by removing an irrelevant field seems way overblown. I can name dozens more reasons why that would never happen but that would take all day. Imma touch some grass

I took that quote to mean, the proliferation of spam creates bloated UTXO sets which is a side point not to do with the issue of choice. The Ethereum connection, I too don't see that. I basically give ethereum the "I don't think of you at all" Don Draper meme out of 10. The ultimate problem is that there was no hard cap (outside of blocksize) for the amount of arbitrary data carrier field. That is a massive flaw especially considering visual data of certain kinds is very illegal for those who even possess it making Bitcoin by extension illegal to host. Even outside of legality, I don't think most people would willingly host CSAM on their FINANCIAL node. Seems like a bad use of data.