Important to call out Dathon Ohm is now lying (misleading?) the consensus process by removing the rejected langauge about a reactive activation method, but may have to employ it anyway? It'll get circulated once the new proposal comes out, deceit is not how you build rough consensus. nevent1qqszllafk56y6mwwch9w3eu6u48dzn0wrmfdynlftlrhky3uy56tu8c0c6dc5

Lol. Block space fees are a future market.

FWIW:

This may already be answered elsewhere, so bear with me if it's been made clear or if the paper was debunked. The 2018?-ish paper I have seen mentioned in various debates on knots vs core mentions one image already in the blockchain suspected (but not verified) of being CSAM. If someone dug up the transaction containing this image and made it public or maybe if law enforcement verified that it was indeed CSAM (perhaps they found the victim and/or perpetrator) - would it for people on the Knots side either not be seen as CSAM because it wasn't continuous and/or "sanctioned" data OR result in a bunch on the Knots side quitting Bitcoin (or maybe forking from a block 7+ years in the past)?

>would it for people on the Knots side either not be seen as CSAM because it wasn't [...] "sanctioned" That's @npub1lh27...a9nk's position yes, to the best of my understanding anyways.

can't block the future 💥

Nothing wrong in putting your money where your mouth is

It wasn't possible until October so the paper is wrong

You literally don't understand the proposal so, I wouldn't bet you could parse whether it could be reactive if not specifically deployed as such. RTFM, thanks.

What

Don’t panic. He is building consensus and it is a very good thing to remove that activation method as it was rejected by most users. If Luke wants the reactive way he can make his own fork proposal to do it. Indeed I think it is a good idea to separate both. I would support one and reject the other one.