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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

* met

This is survivorship bias that valid arguments must only exist in their domain where they have the power to censor.

How convenient that you don't have to read anything!

Yes where I have a voice too.

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)

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15biQH1H140

> 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🤡