We might be screwed. The devs are all more interested in squabbling than discussing. Both sides. What I'd like is a scorecard of previous disputes and who stood where and the outcome. Proof of work. And I'd like them to talk to each other respectfully and publicly, for the purpose of educating plebs.

i do not feel comfortable telling people to run knots until it has better review and release processes in place if you do not want to relay larger op return transactions then run core v29 (the most recent version of core) and do not update to v30 when it is released alternatively you can run v30 with a modified config file i think luke, mechanic, and most core contributors mean well and care about bitcoin long term i want to see more well reviewed bitcoin implementations exist, more choices for node operators is strictly better, this is one of the reasons i have donated my time to build out opensats i think this ‘debate’ has mostly devolved into social attacks and is mostly unproductive i do not think it matters much for the global bitcoin network which client you run, in this specific situation i have said much on this topic in the past, use the search feature if you are curious

Run what you want, but run away from people telling you you’re dumb for running a specific client.

Fair enough 🫡

This is opinion is natural to slightly biased to core. The reason why people are running knots even without the best review is because we feel offended and betrayed.

Who reviews core? Knots is a minor fork of Core.

Cooler heads prevail. Best "NOT TWITTER" explanation I have seen.

Well said. The voice of reason.

a 💯 . right now it’s a distraction imho

Or just update to v30 and change the datacarrier limit. Keeps OP_RETURN limits as is.

Wen taproot ? Or am i late ? That’s about where I am 😂

you're talking about long term, but do you think core 30 may cause a short/mid term problem though? we have a precedent with what happened on bsv, when they raised op return to 100kb and i don't understand yet why this huge risk is being taken so lightly. "just don't update your node" won't be helpful, when other people do update and stuff ends up on a block

Good call

All it takes is one miner not using OP_RETURN filters for all nodes, including yours, to store illicit material. This is the only argument they should refute or substantiate much better. At this point, and given what's happening, I think influential people are definitely compromised.