1. Core's plan was always to roll out 80 byte OP_RETURN incrementally by starting with 40 to see if it broke anything and then ramping shortly up to the intended 80.

2. #Bitcoin Core, having finished that project, has had 80 byte OP_RETURN for nearly a decade now. 85%+ miners have been set to 80 bytes for the same amount of time. Read the commit log. Read the bitcoin-dev mailing list.

3. You admitted on Shitter/X that you went along with the Core team because you had your own fork where you can make any changes you'd like.

4. Now that Jack has invested in you to decentralize mining, you've cast a shadow over the launch by revolting against the implicit op_return contract in #Bitcoin Core which has been standardized by the network over the last decade.

5. Whirlpool transactions are trivial to detect and you could whitelist them no problem. This is about you kneecapping #Bitcoin fungibility while gaslighting the space about decentralization.

6. What's more centralized? The development process in bitcoin:master with a decade+ track record, ~1000 developers, and 20,000+ code reviews, or Knots, where one dude makes god commits daily, breaking critical aspects of #Bitcoin?

7. Until Ocean.xyz launches #StratumV2, you're just another gatekeeper. Ordinals ia going to run out of customers like every other shitcoin. We don't need to compromise Core just because you didn't get your way 10 years ago.

8. GFY.

Running core with MAX_OP_RETURN_RELAY=73 instead of the default 83. Am I censoring?

Running core with MAX_OP_RETURN_RELAY=63 instead of the default 83. Am I censoring?

Running core with MAX_OP_RETURN_RELAY=53 instead of the default 83. Am I censoring?

When do I become a censor?

Your node, your rules.

Accept anything, it's the only way to be marked safe.

Yes, and non-censoring miners will include it and force you to store it anyway.

Literally not true. The parameter you're referring to is purposefully configurable even in Bitcoin Core. It's configurable in Knots as well. Only difference is the default value - again which is designed to be configurable

Yes, and the protocol has deemed the transactions in question as valid.

Now a bunch of humans think the protocol is wrong and should be changed.

They can go fork themselves 😂

If Blackrock was saying certain #bitcoin transactions were invalid and should be removed from the chain, you'd be screaming.

But a core dev you agree with says it and you support censorship.

BITCOIN IS PERMISSIONLESS

BITCOIN IS IMMUTABLE

BITCOIN WON'T CHANGE FOR YOU

Well for the nostr protocol it's absolutely true. The only reason you have to have it is because of the client relay architecture. Anything else it gives you is a bonus.

I think the point he's making is if there's 1 relay, it's just twitter, or if you have one you're on of many it's just AP, no need to prove who you are because the source is unique. When there are multiple potential sources that can be amorphous, for people to fetch your messages the architecture needs a way to prove they came from you.

Signatures are useful to prove something wasn't tampered with, yes.

Cryptography is only needed in Nostr because relays are many and not just one. The relay infrastructure precedes the need for keys.

Maybe this is obvious, but just in case.

Alvin and the Chipmunks version Christmas songs absolutely STINK

Making my case for why fixing the time is more important than fixing the money:

Hear me out.

Time is all we have. In our last days it’s not about how much money or possessions we have. It’s about time spent with loved ones.

Now imagine you got to live 1 month longer every year. By fixing the calendar people will literally live longer by adding months onto their lives.

Thank you coming to my ted talk.

Fix the time, fix the world!

Fix the money later 😂

I BELIEVE LUKE AND THE GENTS BUILDING OCEAN HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS AND WILL PROVE THAT OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.

Any open source software is freedom tech

Doesn't have to be bitcoin or nostr