Thank you for the article. Historically I’ve had a lot of trust for the court team and many who are currently pro-v30, and it seems to have been very hard to get clear responses on specific concerns with this issue. This is the best such response I’ve seen from that camp. However this article and its somewhat misleading headline does NOT contain a strong argument sufficient enough to dispel concerns surrounding the v30 changes. Its content sums up as more neutral. While it points out some reassurances that are all based on current status quo there are several strong statements supporting the idea that this could trigger a downfall. Most of the reassurances here are dependent on two things 1) an assumption that there is too much interest in protecting Bitcoin for an attack to succeed, and 2) the hope that because you can already put small bits of data into the blockchain, find them and then reconstruct them all into something illegal isn’t different enough, from having fully intact readily visible illegal material, to trigger a substantial enough legal attack. Yet the article appears to be somewhat comprehensive as it does provide counter arguments to this, including a dozen statements that sound potentially damning and supportive of the “anti-v30” camp’s arguments. Nick Szabo who is credible in both Bitcoin and legal spaces, who was not included in the article shares the sentiment that the changes are an unwise threat. The article bolsters confidence that the current v30 changes should not be released but be tabled for more review and development. Does the article represent the strongest counter points the pro-v30 minds have?