* met

This is survivorship bias that valid arguments must only exist in their domain where they have the power to censor.

Removing this limitation to enable BitVM or Citrea’s bridge doesn’t count as “proof.” As a node runner, I refuse to go along with changes that risk corrupting Bitcoin Core. It’s arrogant to assume all risks have been accounted for. Just look at how Taproot unintentionally enabled spam via Casey Rodarmor’s Ordinals — a scenario developers didn’t foresee. That alone should be a cautionary tale. The so-called “proof” in the mailing list isn’t convincing, and I’m far more concerned about the unintended consequences that often follow well-meaning but poorly considered changes.

Its the opposite. You suggested censoring people which is a form of harassment - first screenshot. People gave you numerous technical problems with this PR and you were not able to give appropriate argument of why it will be good for Bitcoin network - second screenshot (and there are many more technical comments in the pr discussion although many were silenced like the Bitcoin Mechanic)