Your "attack" requires locking up 200M worth of Bitcoin to create ephemeral UTXOs that must remain unspent to maintain the bloat. That's not an attack - that's voluntary capital destruction. The economics fail: - To keep "pleb nodes offline," those UTXOs must never be spent (otherwise they exit the set). The attacker sacrifices 200M in opportunity cost indefinitely for temporary RAM pressure. - If they do spend them, the bloat vanishes. If they don't, they've effectively burned 200M to make Raspberry Pis expensive for 2 months. China has better ways to spend F-35 money. - Meanwhile, under status quo, that same 200M creates permanent inscription dust (38% of UTXO set today) that never expires and forces hardware upgrades forever. That's the actual attack - and it's already happening. The "empty chain" fallacy: You assume BIP-110 = empty blocks. False. It filters non-monetary data (JPEGs, ZK-proofs). Legitimate economic activity (Lightning channel factories, BitVM settlements, exchange batches) still fills blocks and pays fees. The difference? Legitimate activity aggregates (1 tx = 1,000 users via Lightning). Spam doesn't. Speed vs. Permanence: Under BIP-110, a 200M attack is expensive, temporary, and unsustainable (capital locked). Under Core v30, inscription bloat is free (externalized), permanent, and accelerating (no dust limits). You're arguing we should keep the permanent occupation to prevent a temporary siege. The "defense" is the attack. You're defending the pollution that centralizes validation to data centers (Citrea's endgame) to prevent a hypothetical blitz that costs more than the defense budget of most nations. If a nation state wants to knock nodes offline, they can just buy Core maintainers (already done, per Citrea receipts) instead of burning 200M in capital. Run Knots. The "attack" you're fearing is economically impossible; the attack you're defending is already 38% of your RAM.