This part, while technically accurate on the surface, completely misses the forest for the trees (whether intentionally or not) and ends up gaslighting you into thinking that running Bitcoin Knots makes no difference, and only increases your risk. That’s not true at all.

First of all, spam transactions that end up in mined blocks will inevitably land in your node’s memory, whether you’re running Knots or Core. But Knots gives you the ability to filter out spam at the mempool level, reducing propagation across the network. This matters. If a spam transaction gets relayed by 90% of nodes, there’s a 90% chance it ends up in a block. If you cut that propagation down, you reduce its likelihood of making it on-chain and getting stored forever. It’s simple math and common sense. Currently the datacarriersize filter is STILL BROKEN and in Core and this is precisely why so many spam gets through in blocks. The people that you make excuses for are the reason why any attempts for fixing it get SHELVED!

Second, let’s talk about the implied competence argument. Luke Dashjr’s screw-up with his coins was entirely on him — no excuses. But let’s not pretend the rest of the Core maintainers have spotless records.

Peter Todd? He accidentally leaked personal IDs, passwords, and private correspondence in a massive email failure.

Gloria Zhao? Still insists that rewriting documentation is an acceptable way to fix bugs.

Gavin Andresen? Got fooled by Faketoshi of all people.

Jameson Lopp? Got doxxed and swatted after failing basic opsec.

The big difference? Luke actually has a track record of saving Bitcoin — repeatedly — during real crises. None of the others can say the same. If anything, Luke deserves more trust than the current batch of Core devs, many of whom have questionable affiliations or undisclosed conflicts of interest.