Replying to Avatar Beefy

The benefit I think is that

1. The setting doesn't actually solve any problems.

2. The core devs were sick of the constant debate so they decided to free themselves of it by removing it entirely since it's not consensus critical.

I would prefer they keep the setting and I don't care if anyone runs anything else. I just don't want people to think that they are actually fixing any problem by setting datacarriersize because they're not.
Avatar
nicnym 4mo ago đź’¬ 1

Well who knows? The “CP attack” hasn’t happened yet, so why make the change?

I’m not very sympathetic to devs being “sick of” ANYTHING. Anybody who doesn’t freely contribute to free software should fucking quit and that especially includes this current batch of corporate losers.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Beefy 4mo ago đź’¬ 1

Uncapped arbitrary data has been possible since 2010. Nothing is different. They realized filters don't work because they don't. I think the setting should stay but removing it is not a big deal because it doesn't work.

Avatar
nicnym 4mo ago

It’s a cultural issue. The devs do not set policy. Contrast with how full RBF came into being.

Also most op_returns are under 80B so the filter does work