Big difference is with RBF, nodes enabled it with mass support and there was no protest when the default was changed to reflect the network reality.
Now, the default for op_return is being changed in the face of mass protest.
Discussion
What's your evidence for "mass protest"?
Well sir,
I would say the largest client flag exodus from the mainline implementation in bitcoin’s history since and possibly exceeding the UASF ?
Is that the “evidence” you are demanding?
People tend to read that from https://coin.dance/nodes/all
I see Core maybe lost 3k nodes since the sudden up-tick of Knots in 2025 but the number is also trivial to fake, especially on TOR. It's really hard to find out if 100 TOR nodes are actually distinct nodes or all the same. I don't know what to make of the much more modest up-tick in Knots numbers since a year prior. Was the conflict already brewing? Did somebody pump the Core numbers in order to opportunely let them drop at the right time? I'm looking at April 2024 to April 2025. Both implementations grew, Core by 3k or 20%. Knots grew 600% in that time! So clearly, something was afoot.
If there would be demand for this change, nodes could already change that. But on the contrary a significant portion of the network even changed proactively their node implementation.
Datacarriersize is currently, as of Core v29, 83B and it can be set to any other value. Sadly there is no way to just ask nodes about that setting, right? I'd love to see if people use the setting to increase or decrease the value currently. Guess, nodes could track transactions they receive and from where they got them to defer that setting over time but did anybody do that?
To limit the datacarriersize to 40B as Knots, you can just use Core v29 with that setting. Running Knots is really a form of protest and not the expression of a datacarriersize preference. That said, I don't see clear evidence for "a significant portion of the network even changed proactively their node implementation" as the numbers we see at coindance are easily and cheaply faked.
Grasping intellectual dishonesty does not befit an honorable man.
How about when pro change propaganda posted by reputable people like Calle get ratiod by the masses?
And what steps have Core taken to learn if there is a mass protest? They should care right?
Your question implies it would be important if there was such protest.
I think, Core's strength isn't diplomacy. They did in the past take the right decisions and for example full RBF was introduced in a much more diplomatic way. Opt-in at first, full later. With OP_RETURN they went full-rbf in one swoop.
I think that is the crux of the concerns. The change in behavior.
Lack of diplomacy and totalitarianism are not the same thing. One can be forgiven.
They have made it clear that miners are higher on their list than node runners. I'm not seeing evidence that node runners are even on their list of priorities.