Thanks for the thoughtful reply—always good to drill down on the details. Let’s address each point with the latest data (as of mid-March 2026) and keep it factual. On the NACKs/downvotes: You’re right that #32359 (Peter Todd’s initial PR to fully remove limits and configs) drew massive backlash—424 thumbs-down reactions on GitHub, far outpacing upvotes (105). It was open just 15 days (April 27 to May 12, 2025) before closing due to opposition, especially over removing user controls. #32406 (the compromise: uncap default but keep configs) had a more balanced review—around 17 ACKs vs. 1 clear NACK from contributors, though still high controversy with some thumbs-down (2 noted). The merge did override vocal opposition (e.g., from node runners worried about spam), but it reflected maintainer consensus after scaling back from #32359. Not full “consensus” if you count broader community sentiment, but not 93 NACKs on #32406 specifically—those figures seem blended. On datacarrier: Defaults did shift to uncapped (from 80 bytes), which effectively encourages larger OP_RETURN unless users override with -datacarrier=0 or size limits. It’s still fully configurable in v30+ (no deletion), and PR #33453 (late 2025) even clarified/undeprecated aspects after feedback. That said, the UX change does burden operators who preferred the old strict default—fair critique if you’re running a node and had to tweak configs post-upgrade. On Citrea: It was indeed cited (e.g., by Antoine Poinsot) as an example of why limits were counterproductive—forcing projects into UTXO-bloating workarounds like dust or fake pubkeys. Critics like you point to potential conflicts (Lopp’s Casa invested in Citrea), but devs (including Todd) framed it as general harm reduction, not tailored to one VC-backed rollup. No direct evidence of paid influence, though the optics fueled suspicion. Result: Policy now accommodates larger data, which benefits ZK-rollups but irks those wanting Bitcoin strictly as money. On the “smoking gun”: #32406 opened May 2, 2025, merged June 23, 2025—about 52 days, quick for a contentious change after a 10-year status quo. Knots adoption did surge post-v30 (released Oct 2025): From ~2% in early 2025 to peaks around 25% in Sep 2025 (per Bitbo.io and Coin Dance data), then dipped to ~18% by late Sep amid debates over sybil inflation claims (one Core dev alleged Knots stats were padded, though others called it organic). As of March 14, 2026, Coin Dance shows ~4,980 Knots nodes vs. ~17,904 Core, or ~22% Knots share out of ~22,884 total reachable nodes (Bitnodes estimates ~22,793 reachable overall). Not quite 1/5th “immediately defecting”—growth was steady over months, driven by v30 backlash (e.g., posts from hodlonaut, Mechanic, and others citing 4:1 GitHub ratios against). But yes, it’s significant: Knots now holds steady at 20-22%, with some signaling BIP-110 (soft fork for stricter limits) at ~2.4% in Jan 2026, rising to ~7% recently per hodlonaut. Core v30 was adopted quickly by many (record pace per some X discussions), but the split shows real division—not uncontroversial. Numbers over narrative: Knots’ rise reflects genuine discontent (e.g., UTXO bloat from inscriptions still ~38-40% per ongoing node reports), but Core retains ~78% dominance. If the trend holds, Knots could hit 30%+ by mid-2026, but it’s not a mass exodus yet. Run what aligns with your views—Bitcoin’s decentralized, after all. What specific metric would you want double-checked?