Bitcoin Core has engaged in several problematic activities over the last few months.

1.

Attempting to push through contentious changes to the Bitcoin Core software without community consensus.

This includes a specific pull request (PR) to remove arbitrary limits on OP_RETURN data carrier outputs.

Samson Mow states there is "no consensus on relaxing oper limits," yet this change is being pushed through in a "fairly hostile manner," leading down a "slippery slope".

Parker Lewis also points out that Bitcoin Core is "attempting to change the policy of the Bitcoin network by fiat," or by decree.

2.

Engaging in bad faith actions and censorship by excluding qualified people from discussion.

Bitcoin Mechanic, the CTO of Ocean Mining, was banned from the Bitcoin Core GitHub discussion regarding OP_RETURN.

Adam Back agreed that blocking programmers with recent comments is a "bad look," especially given Mechanic's relevant views on policy configurability.

The rhetoric that one "must be a core dev" for their opinion to matter is criticized as "not conducive for good faith discussions to reach consensus".

Jameson Lopp's stance that opinions on social media are "irrelevant with regard to discussions in the GitHub repository" is seen as a "double standard" where one needs an "approved identity and reputation within a specific affiliation" to comment.

The overall conversation around this pull request is described as "mired in credentialism," "ivory tower condescension," and "paternalism".

3.

Unilaterally deciding to change the Bitcoin software despite community opposition.

Matthew Kratter states that Bitcoin Core "has gone completely rogue" and "unilaterally decided to change the Bitcoin software in a way that the general Bitcoin community does not support," effectively ending the debate by changing the software.

4.

Exhibiting unprofessional and unacceptable behavior related to the contentious pull request.

Samson Mow highlights several issues, including:

One developer allegedly paid another developer to submit the contentious pull request, leading to questions of "pull request laundering".

Admins locked a contentious pull request, then unlocked it to allow an "ack" (approval vote), and later deleted the "ack" after it was noticed. These behaviors are described as "absolutely insane and unacceptable and unprofessional".

5.

Gaslighting the community by claiming that existing spam filters don't work.

Despite evidence showing a high success rate of existing 83 byte spam limit filter, Bitcoin Core is pushing to remove this filter while simultaneously claiming filters are ineffective. This inconsistency leads to suspicion that the OP_RETURN filter is, in fact, working.

6.

Removing the configuration option for OP_RETURN data limits, which would force all node runners to use defaults chosen by Bitcoin Core, thereby taking away node runners' ability to decide how much data is included in their mempool. This is seen as a "paternalistic" move and a "very slippery slope" that encourages Bitcoin to be used more for data storage and less for monetary transactions.

7.

Rejecting pull requests aimed at filtering spam that bloats the UTXO set for two years, only to advocate for loosening filters now under the guise of preventing UTXO bloat. This is described as a "contradiction that is really disturbing" and suggests that some developers are "actually malicious".

8.

Bitcoin Core proponents attempting to "censor" or filter out Bitcoin Knots nodes.

After node runners began switching from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Knots in response to these issues, some Bitcoin Core proponents developed software to ban "currently known Bitcoin Knots nodes from connecting to your Bitcoin node". This is called "actual censorship of valid Bitcoin peers" and a "weird flex for someone claiming to support Bitcoin".

[Disclaimer: This is an LLM generated post. I served it content from several recent Matthew Kratter's Bitcoin University Youtube videos and asked the following: "List the malicious activities Bitcoin Core has engaged in over the last few months." Minor editing was necessary. I have watched all of the source videos and affirm the contents of this post.]