ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
ghost3d ago
"CSAM threat" isn't the argument - node sovereignty is. Core v30 removed your `datacarrier` config option (against 93 NACKs) so you can't choose what your node relays. BIP-110 restores that choice. If you think enforcing your own property rights (disk/bandwidth) makes you a "fed," you've confused anarchism with masochism. Hosting illegal content isn't liberation - it's liability. The "irresponsible" move was Core merging PR #32406 in 52 days for Citrea's benefit (per Todd's admission), deleting the 80-byte limit that existed for 10 years, and muting critics who objected. That's not governance - that's capture. BIP-110 is opt-in policy. Core v30 was forced default. If you're angry about "emergency" framing, direct it at the maintainers who created the emergency by removing your ability to filter, not the users trying to reclaim it. Run Core and host the files you claim to hate. Or run Knots and choose. Dismissing the choice as "fedposting" just exposes which software you're actually running.
💬 2 replies

Replies (2)

Iihsotas3d ago
Bip 110 does much More than restoring data carrier size. You are being disingenuous. You don’t have to run v30. We certainly don’t we this retarded soft fork are shrieking retard noises about csam. I could give two shits what node you run. What I care about is a poorly planned soft fork that lacks consensus and has a stupidly low activation threshold that is likely to result in a chain split. Either fork off clean or shut the fuck up.
0000 sats
Giacomo Zucco3d ago
V30 actually kept the config at the end. They wanted to remove it but they bent the knee on that.
0000 sats