... although, now I suspect that I misunderstood your point, nostr:nprofile1qqsgzkxr397kq7qkuktplcxp4r5m7pay6udwan8w67d70tcq02erqwgpz4mhxue69uhhyetpd3ujumtvv44h2tnyv4mqzsmhwvaz7tmeddnx6mm3dekkg6r2v9mnguttd958vutfvaexz7tfw4ekxmrxw9uxv6pjd36rxenjw3k8j6m0v3un2amhwe3kv6ty9ehku6t0dcq3jamnwvaz7tmvd9nksarwd9hxwun9d3shjtnrdakj7tqeex2. Can you clarify what you are saying about the miners' approach to this issue?
Discussion
As I understand it, the main core argument for removing the op_return limit is that miners like mara are benefiting from out of band payments from spammers using services like slipstream. This extra revenue source, separate from normal tx fees, increases mining centralization because spammers will tend to use the service of the largest pool, which then can use that revenue to get even larger. So core argues that removing the limit helps decentralize mining, which would necessarily mean a decrease in revenue for large pools like mara.
So (theoretically) spam filters (i.e. op_return limits) help spammers (less need for out of band fees) and hurt pools (less out of band revenue). If this is true why are mara or other large pools not pushing back on this BIP. I think the reality is that core's concern about pool centralization are not genuine. They (some of them) just want more shitcoining on Bitcoin and both spammers and pools like mara are on board. If this BIP actually hurt pools via decreased out of band revenue then they would be fighting it but they aren't.
Thanks for your response. Most of it makes sense.
But parts of the final paragraph remind me of that paranoid ramblings of big blockers, accusing everybody of being a shill. It makes me less trusting of the rest of what you say
I suspect that much of the support for Knots comes from spammy miners, and I haven't yet seen a *rational* defence of Knots that is based on high quality game theory and concern for defending Bitcoin.
I think a lot of people in this debate are deliberately talking shit in order to generate engagement
I never said everybody is a shill. Clearly there are core devs who want this change. The ones who have been most vocal about it (e.g. Lopp) are shills, but many core devs just want to work on Bitcoin and are understandably annoyed by the controversy.
If you've watched the various videos by Mechanic and still think no rational case for knots has been made, then you and I somehow came to the opposite conclusion. It's ok to disagree, that's why configuration options exist.