well, that's one of the key points of the debate. but this extends to the OP_RETURN thing, unfortunately... IMHO what's missing in this debate is, nobody takes into valuation who the spammers are, or could be. I mean, are they JPEG fanboys/spekulants/scammers who see value in NFTS, or its the state level actors (governments, banks, corporations) who are attacking Bitcoin to make Bitcoin network too expensive to use? If they are JPEG fanboys, then node runners could possibly discourage them from spamming the network (by making it more difficult), but for the filtering nodes to be effective they need to be 90% of the network. Or maybe JPEGS are no longer trendy because they already failed to deliver value. They already pumped so much money into this project, and net total return from this hype is negative. Maybe they will never return? Atm fees are very low. I'm asking, where are the spammers? Also, what are the chances we reach 90% consensus on the network? If the state/bankers are the attackers, then no filters will work. They will go straight to the miners, force them or bribe them to include spam in the blocks. All verification nodes will accept them, since consensus rules are no violated. Finally, bypassing filters is the easiest hack in the world. Spammers only need to change data markers and continue upload. Sad but true, this the nature of open decentralized protocol. Now, like I said before, I'm most concerned about utxo set, because every fake pub key created to smuggle spam, will stay in the utxo set forever. And not only it makes running a node more expensive (threatening decentralization - maybe), but definitely more expensive to run pruned nodes, since utxo set can't be pruned. Let me just remind at this point that non-custodial native lightning wallets use pruned nodes, so they don't take much space and can be installed on the mobile phones. Reduced data space is very valuable for them and anybody who wants sovereign non-custodial LN wallet running on mobile devices should be protecting utxo set from growing. So the question is: how do we prevent utxo set from growing if probability of stopping spammers is very low? One of the ideas is to remove limits from OP_RETURN. Its's not ideal, because its still much more expensive to use use OP_RETURN for spamming than witness section of trxs. But if someone is willing to pay more, and don't bloat utxo set, why don't allow it? Argument I don't understand is that removing OP_RETURN limit will enable CSAM. But CSAM is already (with high probability) on Bitcoin network and Nostr! The unwanted feature of freedom networks is that we can't censor things. Throwing data into OP_RETURN is much more expensive that in witness. Who will choose more expensive spamming? Seriously who? It's like going to grocery store, finding two identical products with different price and choosing to pay for the more expensive one. Who would do that? Now, going back to whack-a-mole game and is it worth it... Bitcoin devs are very rare species, their time is very scarce, extremely precious. So, if fighting SPAM takes a lot of energy and time, but can achieve not much (comparing to work spent), what do you want Bitcoin devs to work on? For me, I prefer talented devs like Luke Dashjr, to work on one of the following things, rather than chasing rabbits: - scaling Bitcoin - even there was no SPAM on the network, Bitcoin still can't handle entire planet population - improve Bitcoin UX - Bitcoin still too difficult for most people to use efficiently - work on more decentralized and cost effective mining protocols - current miners centralization is not looking good, but not critical imho. And the last question nobody is willing to answer. Once Bitcoin fiat price go up 10x, network fees go up 10x too. With the fees 10x+ from now, will we see spammers willing to pay so much more for the JPEGS that already failed to deliver? I don't think so (unless its a state level attack), and also see some devs not event engaging in the discussion, because with or without knots, the spam will go away, and its better to spent that time on something that will last longer and will work better toward Bitcoin adoption. Both sides want to protect Bitcoin, they just have different understanding of how the best do that. It might seem like I defend CORE devs. I don't. I think they went bananas and completely failed to communicate their reasoning. They are also ignorant and high-nosed, thinking everybody else thinking differently are stupid. They really need someone who would do a PR for them, some technical program manager, whatever, because they suck. However, when I stripped down all the emotional BS that came from both sides, and stick only to technical aspects with addition of applied statistics, I lean towards CORE decisions. ok, you not gonna force me to write again such long essays again... over to you ;)