Aren't mempools specifically designed to make valid transactions censorship resistant?

I checked a few and they were all under 80bytes can you share some that exceed the limit? nostr:note10w7zywg6880y97rr2kq480vfs0rjrkvwkvqhk6hkc2pa9enjp0js402fm2

Also I would appreciate if you or someone addressed my statements about why libre relay is not enough for team spam.

None of these guys address the point I have made about forcing as many node runners as possible to relay their spam. It’s not easy to make transactions that exceed the OP_ RETURN limit. Ben’s bot still has to comply and can only spam transactions that are under the 80 byte limit. They can only get these large spam transactions when a miner they coordinate without of band with finds a block. If all core node runners remove the limit then all miners would be able to include those large spammy transactions and it would occur more regularly which would decrease the average number of transactions per block over time.

This guy Murch is basically saying we only need 10% of the node runners to pass around spam and then we are unstoppable so we should just remove the limit. Obviously they can’t do that grassroots style or libre relay or whatever Todd’s spam blaster is called would be enough. They want to fire this on core node runners and are hoping that half of the runners on the latest version blindly update so their spam can be passed around.

I've been following this as best I can as a non technical person, but I don't think you need to be technical to see that the arguments in favor are weak when considering the potential tradeoff of allowing unlimited arbitrary data to be recorded on chain. I really get a sense that there is an ulterior motive from core devs and others pushing this change and they are not being honest about their reasoning.

This sentence is not finished:

36 bytes for the outpoint that identifies which UTXO is being spent (32 bytes for the txid, 4 bytes for the vout), 4 bytes for the nSequence, and

Mh?

npub1j5mp526z5fkz9wkrk6mt5nzu43xndyrwkr8mnqngdqwytgcpc5vqcnsd5c

I read through the proposal last night, it was not only very well written, but was comprehensive in its telling of the problem against the backdrop of possible solutions. Trade offs are always going to be front and center, and it was nice to see them addressed directly.

The detail and care that went into the risks associated with the prior epochs coins present a well grounded schedule of concern for action.

Very well done across the board, bravo.

You got an early number 😂

Yes

Is this what mempools clearning looks like?

Yup, thats what I assumed. Nodes don't automatically rebroadcast transactions though, right?

If I had a 1sat/vb transaction that hasn't been confirmed for over a year chances are most mempools would have dropped it, and those that didn't wouldn't rebroadcast it automatically, I'd have to rebroadcast?