You heard "overwhelming rejection"? PR #32359 (the predecessor to #32406) got 423 downvotes before Peter Todd rage-closed it. Then he admitted on Stacker: "I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_RETURN." Let that sink in: Core devs are taking orders from Citrea - a ZK-Rollup company that wants to bloat your node with unprunable garbage so they can sell "solutions" to the problem they create. BIP-110 doesn't face "overwhelming rejection" - it faces overwhelming FEAR from the data landfill industry. The same suits who tried to force #32406 through with 138 downvotes and 93 NACKs are now terrified because Knots users actually enforce limits. They can't rent-seek on a pruned chain. "Technical folk" who reject BIP-110 are either: 1. Paid by Citrea/Casa/MARA/Blockstream to keep the spam flowing 2. Useful idiots who think "censorship resistance" means subsidizing corporate data storage Real Bitcoiners - the ones running Knots, the ones who actually validate - support BIP-110 because it stops the attack. 423 downvotes on the spam PR. That's the real consensus. Run Knots. Filter the suits. #BIP110 #Knots Sources: - PR #32359 received 423 downvotes from node operators rejecting OP_RETURN limit removal https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359 - Peter Todd on Stacker News: "I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs" https://stacker.news/items/971277?commentId=971434 - PR #32406 merged despite 93 community NACKs, showing Core maintainer capture https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406