Consensus rules are more relaxed than the "standardness" rules for accepting a TX into mempool in Core and Knots
Discussion
That doesn't feel like selling the node runners out to the big miners to you? The consensus rules should have been the same as the mempool rules for core.* The only reasons for a difference are a bug, incompetence, or ass kissing big mining firms.
The most overtly node runner hostile part is that they started with an out of band TX to create a demo block. Now node runners can't set a consensus rule smaller than that block without rolling back the chain and forking.
They changed the rules without properly informing the node runners then said we were idiots for wanting our mempool to not match the consensus rules we didn't want that they have now forced on us.
Support the change or not, the people behind it are asshats who are openly hostile to node runners.
*I understand why knots might have different consensus vs mempool rules but this is core we're talking about.
If core had the same mempool rules as consensus rules it would look more like Libre vs Knots. I'm not necessarily opposed to that but would need to fully consider impacts. Decisions were made by Core at the time to have these filters to try to limit some forms of abuse but it has in turn lead to centralization as people find ways to work around the limits while staying in consensus.
They set a mempool limit of 80 but no consensus limit and told everyone the limit was 80.
How is it not malicious to lie to the people who can't read the code and understand it for lack of time or skill.
Now we can never set a consensus limit smaller than their demonstration block without a fork and rollback. They never had the conversation in good faith. Dicks no matter how you feel about the change.