Bitcoin’s strength is that both Core and Knots can exist side by side without breaking consensus.

right?

Core’s view?

if miners include a type of transaction, blocking it at the node level just pushes users to private relay channels, which hurts decentralization.

Knots’ view?

letting too much arbitrary data through makes running a node heavier, which risks centralization.

Both are trying to protect Bitcoin, just from different angles.

The real risk is in people confusing policy (relay rules) with consensus (the rules that actually define Bitcoin).

Maybe the best outcome is a mix = some nodes stricter, some looser,

but all verifying the same chain.

Diversity at the edges?

unity at the central rules?

Disclaimer

I’m still learning here and haven’t formed a full opinion. It’s a nuanced topic, so any thoughts, critiques, or good sources to read would be really helpful.

A likely psyop would be to inflate policy disagreements into “existential threats,”

The goal of such a narrative wouldn’t be to change consensus, it would be to divide the community, erode trust in developers, and frighten users into thinking Bitcoin is unstable.

In reality, these debates live at the policy layer, while consensus rules remain untouched.

right?