Bitcoin being a money protocol, agreed. But the mechanism that makes it work as permissionless money is validation without requiring permission or judgment about transaction purpose. Once we start validating based on intended use rather than protocol rules, we’ve introduced a gatekeeper even if it’s decentralized. Longstanding policy does shape Bitcoin’s identity, fair point. But there’s still a difference between policy that protects structure and policy that judges content. Script size limits are structural. Deciding what data is blob storage versus legitimate use requires interpretation. You’re right that everyone has the right to advocate for their preferred implementation and try to win that argument socially. That’s legitimate. My pushback is specifically when that advocacy uses fear and emergency framing rather than technical merit. Preach Knots on its merits, fine. Use CSAM panic to force immediate action, that’s manipulation. If Knots wins on technical arguments and social consensus, so be it. But let it win on merit, not manufactured urgency.