I'm happy to give nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg some artistic license here. It's also worth considering that the people who advocate for filters do not have a clearly articulated position. That includes a lack of clarity about how far they're willing to go. Is the line really at automatic updates? Just because nobody said it out loud? The arguments in favour of filtering seem to vary by who you ask. So that means any attempt at summarising the position can be interpreted as a straw man by someone who has a slightly different position that the other person.
Discussion
You could advocate for preventing easier spam on Bitcoin — but instead, you’re advocating a change that enables it further. How about leaving it alone? You’re proposing a major change, so the burden of proof is on you. We’re not obligated to follow, and we won’t.
Leaving it alone incentivizes WORSE spam - flooding UTXO set!
The pull request links to a mailinglist post that explains all of this. You're not required to read it, but this "burden of proof" has been more than bet. On the flip side, those who oppose the pull request have not raised a single technically valid argument. And rather than just running Knots, many of them choose to harass developers and frustrate the Github repo.
* met
Removing this limitation to enable BitVM or Citrea’s bridge doesn’t count as “proof.” As a node runner, I refuse to go along with changes that risk corrupting Bitcoin Core.
It’s arrogant to assume all risks have been accounted for. Just look at how Taproot unintentionally enabled spam via Casey Rodarmor’s Ordinals — a scenario developers didn’t foresee. That alone should be a cautionary tale.
The so-called “proof” in the mailing list isn’t convincing, and I’m far more concerned about the unintended consequences that often follow well-meaning but poorly considered changes.
Its the opposite. You suggested censoring people which is a form of harassment - first screenshot.
People gave you numerous technical problems with this PR and you were not able to give appropriate argument of why it will be good for Bitcoin network - second screenshot (and there are many more technical comments in the pr discussion although many were silenced like the Bitcoin Mechanic)
Would be interesting to see a response to this nostr:nprofile1qqsgdp0taan9xwxadyc79nxl8svanu895yr8eyv0ytnss8p9tru047qprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuumswfhhvmm0wd6zumnvqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hsqejfhn?
If you want to know why this pull request is very bad for Bitcoin you can watch the Bitcoin Mechanic video who was banned from the GitHub discussion for pointing out that sharing a conflict of interest is not against the rules of the discussion.
> You suggested censoring people which is a form of harassment
It's complete nonsense and I don't have time to engage bad faith actors like "BitcoinIsFuture".
It was already multiple times on that pull request that conceptual discussion needs to happen on the mailinglist. Yet people ignore that instruction. And as I predicted, they kept doing so.
When people break into your office and start screaming at staff, sending them away is not "censorship".
* already stated
"Bad faith actor"? Look in the mirror. Clown🤡
One man’s artistic license is another’s strawman. In discourse, speculating about what position your interlocutor might hold in the future with no evidence whatsoever to back it up - a.k.a. mind reading - is a close cousin to straw manning.