This was the argument used to reject nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuun9d3shjetj9eek2tcpp4mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7tc30zu3c's pr to fix datacarrier size to apply to new methods of carrying data.
Now, despite 21% of the network rebelling, they say 'It would set a bad precedent if we let controversy direct development.'
Make it make sense
https://x.com/achow101/status/1735310357386731533?s=46
nostr:nevent1qqsglu5axmcrpezum0enxd0z2d40tx3xgnwremkf5jezjaatx27tzjgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgnmyuvs
