My point about this is the peasants are being upset about something that really doesn't affect Bitcoin in any notable way.
Core is Peer Reviewed, from a technical standpoint core has less implementation flaws, and is the safer software to run.
Just because something isn't visible to you doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Using Fee Markets are a better disincentive than filters are.
Now to clarify, I think Luke Dash jr. is a smart guy, and means well, and I'm sure most of the Knots people mean well too but they're conflating non-issues into issues.
But Bitcoin Core is bought out by Big Bitcoin also, primarily Blockstream.
Knots won't fix Bitcoin because Bitcoins problems are bigger than someone tying a picture to a UTXO which could be interpreted many different ways by different software wallets.
Financial transactions require additional data in some cases, and removing or limiting OP_Return could limit the financial transaction that could be done on Bitcoin.
If you want a Cryptocurrency that limited its additional transaction data, and focuses only on Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash Systems while maintaining privacy monero works better.
Knots is incompatible with privacy preserving tools like RoninDojo.
The Knots people need to stop being disingenuous about the issue, and saying core supporters supporters support CSAM.
I don't think Luke Dash Jr. is a Federal Agent but I think both sides have a financial stake in the updates, which is why so much FUD about "The Other Bitcoin" is being deployed.
At least with a hard fork then the debate about this will end completely since both projects can focus on making their "Bitcoin" the way they want it instead of complaining about Bitcoiners who aren't following their node of choice.
Bitcoin is permissionless, I don't care what node you run, run v29, v30, knots, knobs, or Bitcoin Cash if you want but don't make the debate about people who disagree with you are evil.
Because core people aren't evil because if they were then they would be working for fiat systems instead of curating a Permissionless Cash system.
If people wanted to use Bitcoin for csam they would find other ways to do it but anyone with a brain would know that a proper mechanism would be built to prevent this, or that people would accept it as a nature of Bitcoin's permissionless behavior.
Like I said Fee Markets are the best determination, make Data transactions more expensive than Monetary transactions, and this problem prices itself out of the market, eventually even state actors wouldn't be able to maintain a sustained attack.
Grok on inscription attacks.

nostr:nevent1qqsrch7fldmf5nhkka40cuatd9nmcfghztn9npmnxr7ut4phu92wjlg3cvq6v


