I believe this last part is what most people miss about this debate. I don,t care about default i care about options. So core's plan to depreaciate the option is what rubbed me the wrong way. I believe this is where the rubber meets the road to alternatives. Good to see core contributers starting to realise this.

Pieter Wuille: "Both these concerns are also an assumption by the developers that this is what majority of users will choose to do but that's not a practical conclusion. Specially if the configuration is completely taken away from users. Hypothetically speaking if majority of users choose to change defaults or switch to using more user-friendly node client like Knots then the same argument can be made i.e. the minority not in-sync with majority will have bad fee estimation(if mempool-based) and miners trying to mine more arb-data/spam txs will have higher risk of stale blocks. So, the idea of changing-defaults-radically or deprecating or marking as to-be deprecated is not grounded in solid engineering foundation for a decentralized network where the information and decision-making should be diffused as much as possible instead of basing it on assumptions made by unfounded and theoretical calculations by developers."

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I would say that's the least important of the arguments he's making here. People should read this, but, they've already had all this explained to them and they don't care, shrug.

I don’t think that ppl don’t care about it, they simply value soemthing else more

Thats a well assessed reality. There is value in intelligence and merit.

💯 this is exactly where I fall on the issue. It's about options and removing those options takes us to a point of no return. If you want decentralization, then you have to let node runners decide what they will relay.

I'll be switching to knots.