Your answer hasn't been helpful, as it's full of emotional rhetoric, and I don't see any information in your answer. Are you trying to say "Knots has a zero-byte limit on OP_RETURN?". That's the kind of answer that would be helpful

The most substantial difference is that one is a project with hundreds of regular contributors and peer reviewed code while the other is a sole developer whose code doesn't get peer reviewed.

I've been trying to quickly catch up with the details of Knots. Is this true: - it's new, and hasn't been reviewed much - it limits op_return to 42 bytes - today, Core has a limit of 80 bytes - but the next release of Core will have no limit on op-return - both clients transfer data via the normal Bitcoin client relay network and not over any other network; i.e. neither of them use any other network I'm trying to write neutrally, to get the facts straight. I'm very aware of the spam/op-return/unspendable-utxo debate, I just don't know much about Knots specifically

Another important reason users are running Knots as opposed to Core is Core doesn't allow for home mining. Or the #Bitaxe community is growing pushing more users to run Knots.

This surprises me, but thanks for the input! Surely most home miners have their miners connected to a (Core) node? Are you just saying that Knots has extra features and integrations to help it work with home mining?

Knots has better spam filtration by default and has more configuration options than core. Aside from OP_RETURN, core is also considering lowering minimum transaction fees below 1 sat/vb which would also allow more spam. Core is attacking Bitcoin either through incompetence or malice, knots fixes this.

Knots accepts unlimited-op-return transactions once they have been mined Is there a (credible) plan to introduce an OP_RETURN limit in the consensus rules?

So core is destroying Bitcoin and there is nothing we can do about it. Cool story bro.