With respect, while I don’t think the 80 byte OP_RETURN thing should actually be filtered because it’s a lot point by now, there IS a critically important difference between filtering and censoring in this context:

• One is a question of WHAT is allowed in the bitcoin chain, which is a universal policy. Every node does this and this is similar to arguments with RBF and the like. In a sense, this is the only thing bitcoin does, is filter with extreme prejudice, WHAT goes into the chain.

— there is an argument to be had on whether the byte issue is good/bad, but it’s not censoring privacy transactions or coinjoins. It’s a filter that *happens* to catch one kind.

• The other is a question of WHO gets into the blockchain. F2Pool here had the audacity to claim that a certain address, with a certain balance, is owned by some “evil” people because some govt body, without trial or due process, has declared their evil acts and demanded punishment & eviction from market activities.

Regardless of whether this particular kind of filtering should be considered good, or that it potentially sets a bad precedent, they are not the same thing in terms of the danger and subjectivity of the decisions.

Deciding WHAT goes into the chain is a process of defining the bitcoin system, deciding WHO can get into the chain is censorship and violating the basic tenant of neutrality.

The phrase isn’t “Bitcoin is for everything,” it’s “Bitcoin is for everyone. nostr:note14hm0a4xz7v5dmsmslj6h694vmnlytc59k4mv2s254clm3zdcpzmsujjv3x