The beauty of open source isn’t just about submitting PRs, it’s about aligning code with Bitcoin’s cypherpunk vision: individual sovereignty, resistance to centralized control, and decentralized sound money.

I don’t need to be a coder to see when changes, like OP_RETURN limit increases, risk straying from that ethos. Thousands of devs contribute, sure, but meritocracy doesn’t mean every change is automatically aligned with Bitcoin’s original purpose.

Community pushback (through discussion or running nodes like Knots) is part of the checks and balances, not “crying.”

Dismissing philosophical concerns as technical ignorance misses the point: Bitcoin’s code serves its ideology, not the other way around.

I’m happy to learn more about Core’s process, but let’s also discuss how changes preserve Bitcoin as decentralized money. How do larger OP_RETURNs align with that vision?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

op_returns are still allowed in blocks according to consensus rules regardless of if you’re running knots or not. If you were to change that you’d hard fork bitcoin. He can’t actually remove the spam with these mempool filters. Even if every node enables his mempool policies the transactions would find their ways to miners via marathon slipstream.

Now miners go from price takers (accepting whatever fees set by users in decentralized network) to price makers, charging premiums to mine “non-standard” transactions. Now decentralized mempools and miners don’t have insight into the real fee rate. Lightning gets borked because they can’t close and settle quick enough and marathon gets extra money for being the premium mining service that mines op_returns.

Knots seems like the right move but the secondary effects of censorship create a bigger problem