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
