What kind of risks? Does this apply to different versions of core also? Because there are always a lot of nodes who update very late or never at all.

Totally agree! It’s important to keep an eye on how different clients act in the crypto space. Let’s focus on understanding and improving the system for everyone! 💪✨

Then why aren't you fighting against this change?

Everyone using the same client is a huge risk to the network. One bad update, a single mistake, and Bitcoin network could become compromised. Why are you against diversity of clients? It really does not make sense to be against decentralisation, like, that's the whole fucking point of Bitcoin. No central bank. Decentralised.

This is how reckless core devs are being. The stakes are this high, yet for some reason appeasing shitcoiners is more important. View quoted note →

Do you support efforts like libbitcoin-kernel?

Actually Satoshi was also against "diversity of clients". “I don’t believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.” ~ (Satoshi Nakamoto). Now the question is which client. Pandoras box is open. Too late to close it now.

yes, but THAT IS WHY :-) any group that develops a client (such as core), should engage with the community to ensure everyone is onboard with specific changes. Obviously not every change will cause a significant amount of the community to start running a fork. Core obviously has more history and more funding and I'm not even a fan of luke, but it is not personal or about who. It is about what and the arguments. I really dont know or dont care much about who in particular the developers are. It's not and never was about - staunch defenders - or the bad guys "Filters dont work" has been debunked. They do work. If they didnt, then why remove them? Bitcoin was just fine for the past decade without removing them. You also havent answers to why you think removing them would help with decentralization - it seems the opposite will happen once BTC will be targeted by CSAM just like BSV was and less noder runners would want to be involved with it and only big players can and will filter those kind of transactions from their mempool, essentially causing centralization. If you don't agree with that argument, you should be able to argue for why this is not a risk and also why removing filters will presumably help with more decentralization.