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.

Im not saying we need good spam I just pointing out that the noise in the chain does buffers the chain from a very specific and vanilla attack. The spam gets in the way of other transactions and fills otherwise empty blocks, which spreads out the timeline and increases the cost of a basic utxo attack involving 1in 25 out transactions that are bip110 complaint is all that is needed. A nation state could make a determined effort with these regular bip 110 compliant transactions and spend under a billion dollar and have pleb nodes knock offline in 2 months. They could spend considerably less and drag that timeline out to 8 months. In either case the bip110 chain becomes captured before the temporary rules expire. The only defense is adopting utreexo, but as we have learned a lot of knotzi run their nodes in bandwidth limited environments so that solution is probably no good. The speed of such attack is a bigger problem than the actual higher ram requirements. Adapting the network to better hardware is normal. Having to do it in 2 months is not.

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.