Tolerating a small group of people calling themselves "core devs" dictating what can and cannot end up in your own mempool is far more dangerous than local filtering which does not even influence protocol itself. Node runners should not tolerate any action that impairs their ability to make decisions regarding software they're running on their own computers.

More great info from Matt. The crystal ball shows a future fork is coming. The Supply Event: A "Divorce" of UTXOs In a clean, ideological fork, the following would happen at the moment of the split (the "fork block"): 1. The Ledger Duplicates: Every single private key that held bitcoin at the block height of the fork would now control: · coins on the Corporate Chain (CC) · AND an equal amount of coins on the Sovereign Chain (SC) 2. Total Supply is (Initially) Doubled: From that moment forward, there are now two separate assets with two separate histories. The total supply isn't "split"; it's replicated. If there were 19.5M BTC in circulation at the fork block, there would now be 19.5M CC-coins and 19.5M SC-coins. 3. Post-Fork Mining: This is where the chains truly separate. · Sovereign Chain (The Real Bitcoin): Miners continue extending this chain. The 21 million cap remains sacred and unchanged. There are still 1.5M SC-coins left to be mined. The monetary policy is intact. · Corporate Chain (The Bloat Chain): Miners also mine this chain, but its future is unwritten. The 21 million cap becomes meaningless. Why? Because the value of its native coin (CC-coin) is now completely untethered from the sovereign asset. They could change the emission rate, inflate the supply, or do anything they want. Their coin is a new altcoin with a copied transaction history. The Economic Reality: The "Market Correction" This is where their devastation happens. They are going to make their own Bitcoin worthless. · The Sovereign Chain (SC) would be valued by the market based on the original Bitcoin thesis: sound, scarce, decentralized money. Its value would be a function of its security, adoption, and unwavering adherence to the 21M cap. · The Corporate Chain (CC) would be valued as... corporate loyalty points. Its value would be a function of its utility to banks for settlements and data anchoring. It would be a service, not money. The market would immediately and ruthlessly arbitrage this difference. The vast majority of holders would race to sell their CC-coins on the corporate chain to buy more SC-coins on the sovereign chain. This would cause: 1. The Price of CC-coins to Collapse. It would likely fall to a small fraction of the SC-coin's value. 2. The Hashing Power to Migrate. Miners follow profit. If the SC-coin is vastly more valuable, the vast majority of hashrate would secure the sovereign chain, making the corporate chain insecure and prone to attacks. The Final, Poetic Justice So, what happens to their Bitcoin? The elites and corporations would find themselves holding a massive bag of worthless corporate scrip on their bloated chain. The "bitcoin" on their balance sheets would be an asset with rapidly evaporating value. The real Bitcoin—the sovereign monetary network—would continue, with a harder money than ever before. It would have successfully purged itself of the actors who sought to corrupt it. The total supply to be mined remains exactly the same: ~1.5 million coins. The math doesn't lie. The market doesn't lie. You cannot counterfeit credibility. The fork wouldn't be an attack on Bitcoin; it would be the market performing The Correction on a cancerous growth. It would be the system healing itself. They are debasing their own holdings. They are committing monetary suicide while thinking they're building an empire. The sovereign chain would be lean, mean, and free. And it would be worth more than all the corporate bloat in the world. This is the way. View quoted note →

The spam filters work together with the fees and economic incentives to keep the Bitcoin monetary network free of spam, free of disgusting cp, decentralized, robust, permissionless and global.

@npub1qg8j...24kw I am a small insignificant shit, but you’re loosing my business here. I regret buying my two Jades from you, Sir.

You'll eventually come around to regretting that you listened to and followed all the bullshit and divisive FUD that Kratter is spewing on his videos to his newbie bitcoin followers. Hopefully that day will be soon because if you truly believe Kratter understands bitcoin better than Adam you will likely end up making some very bad choices like the people who followed Roger Ver did.

That's just FUD, it doesn't make a difference for Bitcoin's consensus proof. If you don't want to, don't update it.

Thanks for your interest. Anyway, I can think for myself and I do not only rely on @Matthew Kratter to form my opinion. I’ve been stacking sats and maintaining my own node on a Linux machine (not a plug-and-play thing likeStart9 or Umbrel..) for the almost 4 years now. learned a lot, read a lot, thought a lot. @Bitcoin is no rocket science, its ethical and political aspects are accessible to any moderately literate person. Mr Back sure is a part of Bitcoin’s history, but people change, and their motives, also. You mention Ver, that’s a good example. He was handing out bitcoin in the streets of Tokyo, and was Jesus, look at what he’s up to now. People change. Each individual node have agency over what’s in their mempool. I’m not afraid of divisive FUD, it just means debate. I chose my side in this OP_RETURN war, the side of what I think is sanity and benevolence.

datacarriersize=0