Any plans to have someone on who opposes the charge?

Yep. Working on it!

Buff said

Top 😍

Many points here I hadn't considered. Learned a lot and appreciated the diversity of perspectives... which will probably get me kicked out of the tribe. Don't you just hate vegetables and seed oils?

Maybe I just have PTSD, but at least after an iPhone update changes a configuration setting on me, Apple leaves the ability to change it back to the way i had it. Even then, because of this kind of Apple paternalism, if there were a usably viable fork of iOS available, I'd likely be using it. If Apple had simply encouraged me to change the setting myself rather than presuming on my behalf, I might even consider it... just saying.

I normally like Shinobi, but his self-admitted inability to see the other side seems intentionally myopic. It seems like he's more interested in being right than challenging his beliefs.

I learned quite a bit from this, thanks for doing the interview.

Enjoyable episode, thanks to you and @Shinobi hope you get mechanic on to hear the otherside. The one question i wish you had asked is what @Shinobi thinks are the risks of implementing the change to remove the limit, both in terms of probability and impact...

Shinobi was very clear he thinks there's no rational arguments against the change, which suggests he doesn't believe a tradeoff or risk even exists. Pretty silly opinion of you ask me.

I think it would help if the devs explained the incentives here. All I hear is that the opreturn limit doesn’t matter. Why does removing it matter then? There’s already a discount for jamming stuff into witness data so what is the incentive to change that behavior? Logically it seems like if the fee structure isn’t changed then people will continue the status quo. I haven’t heard anyone address this. Also wouldn’t Citrea’s use of opreturn be extremely limited? All the purported use cases I hear about seem to be edge cases. And I find it condescending to hear him suggest that knots node runners may not control any bitcoin. I guess only Saylor’s node matters then?

Yes, but suggesting something and explicitly saying it is a very different thing. Pretty silly reply if you ask me.

I was suggesting the answer to your question could be gleaned from a response Shinobi already gave. I then offered my opinion on Shinobi's implied position. I was trying to be helpful. You're trying to be a dick.

Great interview. @Shinobi's arguments seem very coherent. I would still like to see an interview representing the other side of the argument but at this point I'm not sure I'll find them convincing. The point made that this is distracting and getting in the way of progress on privacy and scalabilty is strong.

Love the show Danny. This one wasn’t the easiest to listen to though. Wish you would have pushed back in a handful of spots where it felt like clear contradictions were said.

I'm taking Shinobi's advice and running Knots.

So I'm always willing to hear the other side. @Shinobi does make a really strong argument. But it's interesting to me... He makes the argument that people can make a transaction and pay as much as they want for it and that's none of anyone else's business. And I agree with this point. But that same argument can be made to the software. Why can I no longer change the setting of OP_Return that's running on MY personal hardware? I understand his arguments that the filter isn't doing anything... But why are my choices being limited? Shouldn't I have the freedom to tweak the software the way I want? Instead I'm being told if I want any of the security updates that come with new software, I MUST accept less choice. I don't believe that was addressed in the podcast.

Having said that, I completely disagree with the position that Bitcoin is "just a database" and therefore any use of it should be seen as legitimate. Sure, it is supposed to be permission-less, but shouldn't we strive to keep it a permission-less monetary network, not a permission-less database?

Contrary to my initial reply, I am now fully convinced by @Bitcoin Mechanic and as a result considering installing Knots on my @Start9.

chapeau ! to the "huge, opinionated loudmouth" and "giant, fcking prick" 41:50 "it's not about you" listen to what he has to say ! bravo !

You can, run Knots. You have an option no matter what Core does. That's my point. Why is there a nonstop smear and bullshit campaign attacking core developers when there is software that is using the same consensus code that Core does doing what you want? Most of the people attacking developers don't even use Core, they already run Knots. So why are they being such deceptive and manipulative scumbags towards developers of software they don't even use?

Have you not thought that maybe the "deceptive and manipulative scumbags" are from your side? Also as far as I see its you who are the smearer in this post ...

If this is a serious question then I feel like I should give my 2 satoshi. I will attach a picture that shows I ran core on my start 9. Then all of this happened and I upgraded to knots. So the logo is still core, but the name and features changed to knots. We don’t want just 1 option. We would love to have core, knots and a few more. Most bitcoiners have 10 different wallets. Not because we need them. It’s because it is cool. We are nerdy like that. So we are switching to knots because we want to configure our node in our own home, or in our control to the way we like it. We respect what developers do. All developers no matter if they work at core, knots, Libre….ect. It sounds to me like developers don’t respect developers if anything. I’m not bashing anyone on anything they have said in the past. I am strictly trying to make the point that Luke says he has an idea to stop the UTXO bloat and there is no mention of how it can be made better, or worse, or implemented ect. For this bitcoin thing to work we all need each other. I understand as a developer you have a huge burden of responsibility to ensure that things keep working, but Satoshi said it best. “Peer to peer electronic cash” If it isn’t supporting the title of the white paper, or the first sentence of the paper… then what are we really talking about? It’s more of a popularity contest. When I say we need each other I specifically am talking about the world wide collective. Bitcoin is still running without Satoshi, so I am not being outright disrespectful by thinking that Bitcoin needs ME specifically. I have killed that ego a long long time ago. #mynodemycoice. #bitcoin

I can understand that. For the record, I'm not attacking core developers. It doesn't look good to smear people that do a thankless job of making sure Bitcoin client gets security updates and keeps on ticking. I really appreciated the conversation.