Would somebody please contact Dennis Porter... And have him come on Nostr Unfortunately he is another one of those who do not understand just how much censorship is going on on 'X' and how we need free communication to move Bitcoin along. Nostr rules

The OP_RETURN war is heating up Seems to me that this could culminate in a fork which nobody wants Lukas - duczko on X wrote: My current understanding of the Core/Knots debate below 👇 Let me know what you think. CURRENT STATE 1. All nodes are blocking the data so <100kb images can’t get stuffed into the chain in easy readable form. 2. Slipstream and MARA wont accept to put illicit images on-chain via their backdoors because it’s a massive business risk for them (and the team would have moral objections too). 3. People that want to put illicit images >80 bytes on-chain are left with the only option to chop up the data in hard to read form. Thereby giving the noderunner plausible deniability and relative safety from government crackdown. 4. As a result the chain is mostly clean from easy readable large 100kb-ish images with illicit content. Yes, there is nasty stuff hidden in convoluted forms, but you have to have special software and know where it is to find it. Thereby, hosting the blockchain is not tied with legal risk. NO FILTER STATE 1. Anyone can put large illicit images >80 bytes into your node. Because you are downloading and decrypting the data in easy readable form by the node software you don’t have plausible deniability and you are exposed to significant personal legal risk. 2. Also, the chain will start getting stuffed with illicit images that everyone will have to store. Which may also become a big problem for node runners down the road, making hosting Bitcoin blockckain into a toxic waste storage operation that many noderunners may opt out of. SUMMARY Core is playing with fire. Changing from current state into a filterless state is not a trivial change as many claim but is connected with significant risk to destroy incentives for noderunners to run nodes. Risking significant decrease in people wanting to run nodes and thereby decreasing Bitcoin decentralization. NOTE An argument I often hear is “only economic node matter”. I’m not sure I agree, but let’s assume it’s true. Then it’s still true that the people running economic nodes have personal risk and if it’s a business then it’s also a team and a business risk that many economic noderunners may not be eager to take.

Luke Dashjr People need to stop trying to dress up attacks on Bitcoin as "debates". That implies there are two legitimate "sides". There is no "debate" around OP_RETURN. There is an attack, and it must be fought.

Average plebs who can use a computer need to run knots nodes This isn't hard Real democracy is possible But you do need to vote Do it

Some are worried that too much anti-spam emphasis is being given to node software: The Knots vs Core wars I would hope that more and more 'good' miners will continue to come online - those not financed by fiat paper. Miners truly interested in seeing the value of their coin rewards augment, will not be so interested in spammy Txns. Optimized anti-spam nodes will aid here long term We need knots to keep the rewards