That being said, Calle is an arrogant fuck and doesn't care about how he choses his words in this debate at all. Wouldn't assume that his opinion/behaviour represents "the Core side".

They calmly and professionally call anyone who disagrees with them an idiot.

There was an scaling solution that needs slightly bigger OP_RETURN so they decided to bloat utxo set instead. When core saw that they decided to increase memeppol limit. What was the scaling project? I forgot and can't find it under all op_return rage. :D

You are stuck in the past (few weeks :D). Core people got annoyed by sub-par core arguments and either stopped responding or responded with snarky comments. This provoked a new breed of knots arguers with more coherent arguments.

It was Citrea, and AFAIK they plan to use utxo stuffing only if a bitvm contract is challenged. This is designed never to occur, as it requires someone to manually create and submit a "cheating" bitvm transaction, whereas "honest" bitvm software is designed to try very hard not to let you do that. Besides the disincentive of manual work, it also carries a huge monetary disincentive: your counterparty in the bitvm contract is meant to be running software that automatically detects cheat txs and responds by taking all of the money the cheater put in the bitvm contract. (It works a lot like a lightning penalty tx, but more complicated because bitvm is complicated.) Despite being designed never to occur, this potential for extremely rare utxo stuffing by one party has been leveraged to relax the op_return limit for everyone. Which I think is silly.

So what are the professional, logical, and technical arguments for easier CSAM inclusion into the blockchain (and we know it *will* happen)? This enables a new .gov attack surface. We can only go from zero to one once. Why assume this risk?