Policy discussions belong on the mailinglist imo.
New psyop just dropped. The existing standardness rules such as the 80 byte limit on OP_RETURN are now called "paternalisms", and a few devs have started to make moves to remove them from Bitcoin Core v26 and onwards.
This would change the default relaying policy to further encourage the use of Bitcoin as a permanent storage medium.
If you want to voice your concern over this development you can do it in this Pull Request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130
Discussion
Can you show folks how to participate in the mailing list, then?
Christopher said in the PR that his intention was to "have a legitimate discussion" about this policy change, and I'm obliging.
The list is here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Changing policy rules is relevant for all Bitcoin software, not just Bitcoin Core.
That said, the mailinglist should be limited to technical arguments. In the sense of RFC 7282.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7282
For full on political takes like "let's sue x", social media is a better place.
Policy isn't rules at all, and if it affects you, you're writing broken software
No, policy is something users decide for themselves, not something standardized across the network.
All #Bitcoin discussion belongs in the open. #Sunshine is the best #disinfectant.
There's no question that #development has become #diseased, #rancid and #putrid. It's time for some fresh air..⚖️👮♂️💀
Agreed. Submitting an unpopular PR just to start a flame war is unprofessional.
Then again, we're dealing with NFT bros. Stoking controversy is how they make their $$$
#Bitcoin