This was the argument used to reject @Luke Dashjr's pr to fix datacarrier size to apply to new methods of carrying data.
Now, despite 21% of the network rebelling, they say 'It would set a bad precedent if we let controversy direct development.'
Make it make sense
You're free to transact how you want.
Nodes are free to relay what they want.
Nodes are free to run whatever software they want.
Miners are free to mine what they want.
You are free run a node and mine if you want.
That's why knots is not censoring transactions.
That's why bitcoin is censorship resistant.
You CAN NOT force anyone else to relay or mine something they don't want to.
Knots simply has stricter default mempool policy which users like.
Anyone making claims that knots = censorship either doesn't understand bitcoin and should be ignored or are lying to you and should be ignored.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
