Posting this thread from nostr:nprofile1qyw8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttjv4kxz7fwwak8vuewwdcxzcm9qythwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnxd46zuamf0ghxy6t6qqsqyredyxhqn0e4ln0mvh0v79rchpr0taeg4vcvt64te4kssx5pc0sk99k65 here on Nostr for everyone's reference and my analysis of it: https://x.com/adam3us/status/1963830548012372324

My take:

**ADAM BACK DID NOT MENTION KNOTS**

People who called Adam “pro spam” (and worse) for weeks are now celebrating that “Adam is back.”

NEWSFLASH: he never left.

Obviously Adam freaking Back is not “pro spam” and never was.

He simply did not agree with the efficacy of the proposed "solution" (Knots node implementation) from a technical perspective (and still does not agree that node filtering of spam is a viable solution, based on my reading of his thread).

Instead, Adam is trying to lay out the *economic* case for how to deal with incentives to filter spam at the *miner/pool* level, while clearly stating “bitcoin is about money, spam has no place in the timechain. what defaults the bitcoin core project puts in the reference client matter in this."

Again, clearly Adam is not "pro spam."

A key line that jumped out to me was “to prevail, we have to make economic sense (or we work against our own objectives)”.

Adam focuses on *miners/pools*—and their economic incentives, or lack thereof—not on node implementations.

If you’ve spent the past weeks bashing Adam because you think he is a “spam apologist,” now is a good time to check your assumptions and consider that Adam wants what is best for bitcoin... as do you... as do I.

We ALL want what’s best for Bitcoin to make sure it succeeds as unfuckable sound money and a censorship-resistant medium of exchange.

No serious person is like "OOOH YEAH I LOVE SPAM! MORE JPEGS ON THE TIMECHAIN, PLEASE!"

It is possible to disagree with the efficacy of a proposed solution *without* being a "spam apologist."

Just because someone has a different opinion than you do about a solution does not mean that person is your enemy or has been "compromised."

This should be obvious but apparently it needs to be said...

nostr:nprofile1qyw8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttjv4kxz7fwwak8vuewwdcxzcm9qythwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnxd46zuamf0ghxy6t6qqsqyredyxhqn0e4ln0mvh0v79rchpr0taeg4vcvt64te4kssx5pc0sk99k65 -- I hope I have not misrepresented anything you said -- just trying to help parse your thread for my fellow plebs. Thanks for all you do.