Core overstepped by loosening default relay policy amid disagreement and this proved the concensus rules need to change to overcome the vulnerability of the core team being socially attacked

Pedophiles already exist therefore Bitcoin should accomadate them? That's really your argument? Lopp already put dickbutt pictures on the time chain so now everyone should be allowed to upload baby rape videos?

I've yet to hear anyone say what would be negative about bip110 if it was widely accepted (which I realize is not the case yet). Shouldn't we be asking core to implement it as well? Why don't they?

Ideally they would. Easy for me to say coming in and Monday morning quarterbacking, but it seems like this whole situation is wildly political for no reason. The conversation would ideally have been: "Hey, we're behind on some maintenance. Let's drop some cruft, tighten some unnecessarily loose data limits that are feeding non-monetary use and kill the inscriptions hack." Then we would have a calmly go through back testing against the chain to make sure we didn't chop any legit monetary use and roll the thing. It's not that hard. And then I assume there would be hot cocoa with marshmallows. ☕ Obviously that ignores that there are incentives, financial interests, rivalries, reputations, egos and tribes. I'm not surprised this is hard for non-technical reasons. My point is just how purely non-technical problem actually is here. The actual technical problem itself could have been solved by small number of people in a matter of weeks if they were working together well. Instead we have a total shitstorm. Whatever. It will be fine, but I have to be pro 110 on the merits until someone can explain why its a bad idea from on the merits. 🍿

Why not roll back the change? I’m convinced some people would pause and reconsider how urgent this fork really is. If the goal is truly to minimize damage, reduce division, and lower the risk of a chain split, then reverse the change…

What’s the issue with tighter rules? Isn’t the fact that degens like Todd run Librerelay, that consensus tightening is better suited than policy changes to face/reduce spam? If >40% of network TXs is (potentially horrific-) crap, we should care shouldn’t we?!🤔

When you increase a policy parameter 1200× that’s enforced by default on 95%+ of nodes, that’s a de facto consensus change. It’s embarrassing that an OG like you doesn’t grasp that.

No it is not, consensus rules can only be changed via a fork: a soft fork if you tighten the rules, and a hard fork if you loosen them. Relay rules can be equal or tighter than consensus rules, but never looser. The consensus rule for OP_RETURN size is that there's no limit. What Core is trying to do is make relay rules equal to the consensus rules (instead of tighter) Why is this important? When you have tighter relay rules, you create incentives for miners and pools to create an API where one can broadcast non standard transactions (which already happened) which increases the risk of mining centralization. If I want to broadcast a non standard transaction, I just need to contact a handful of these APIs and send my transaction. This makes a handful of big hashing power players to have a different mempool from the rest of the miners, a form of centralization, which creates opportunities for MEV and censorship. And if you have censorship, it's not Bitcoin anymore. So, you're worried with what people can put on the machine, while Core is worried with keeping the machine running. Sorry to say, but in this specific case, Core worries are more important than yours: it doesn't matter what people put in the machine if the machine is not working.

I see just about 15% here. And I'm quite certain that the two thirds of nodes we don't see because they're in TOR, don't look decisively different.