78e3e1a1b2c4b440...

You are just being voluntary obtuse in order to win an argument. Anyone can pretend not to understand a point. Also, you talk like you are charge, but it's not like anyone is going to adjust anything at that point, right? It's just one small group trying to impose their views to everyone else no matter the disagreements, and going to fail achieving anything at all for that very reason. 🤔

Well, you are right, the technical arguments matter more. My issues are: - The restrictions are too aggressive and hurts moneraty use cases and scaling solutions, even though the authors are not fully honnest about this. - Among other issues, the proposal blocks any further upgrade to the consensus, which we will need to improve scaling through Ark & Lightning. (imagine if it were to last...) - I don't believe a temporary fix makes sense considering the risks that come with changing the consensus, I don't want Bitcoin to go for Monero-like yearly updates/debates. - Moreover, temporary already implies the solution is known to suck, and no good solution is available yet. I prefer to wait for a proper fix and activate that. I think it would be more sensible to go for straightfoward, atomic, consensual fixes and respect the process of convincing the community more widely, as previously accepted forks did. Of course it won't be possible to go as far in terms of restricting spam, but it will also avoid stupidely hurting our owns.

It just shows that 80% of the bloat nowadays comes from OP_RETURN, as I already explained. You really missed the point on that one. Btw, just a few years from now, our blocks will be systematically full of monetary transaction because of adoption. Do you think it will cause bitcoin to collapse, or to the least to centralize completely? Or, in your view, are non-monetary transactions the only ones that can cause a node to struggle? Because if full blocks are a threat to bitcoin, then mass-adoption is a threat to bitcoin too, isn't it? Then maybe we should make sure Bitcoin never expands and never growths, just like BIP110 proposes... :)

Well once again if you cap op_return, that leaves only witness-embedded spam that you can prune away. Your graph actually confirms that it doesn't amount to much, so I'm pretty confused about how you're reading it? The point is, we could have gotten rid of that op_return part with a simple, consensual fix but instead they wanted to push it too far to prove something, and what'll we get is no fix at all because this thing is crappy and won't activate.

I am opposed to core v30 for the exact same reasons I am opposed to BIP110: sloppy engineering forced through the community with poor arguments. Btw, core v30 didn't enable posting contiguous harmful content on chain: it was enabled in 2013 by OP_RETURN, that was limitless at the consensus level from the start. And to be clear, the threat was well known all along. There are press articles from 2018/2019 that were FUDing about it during that bear. Anyone who's familiar with bitcoin, like Luke also is, has knew about this for years if not a decade — so why is it suddenly an emergency after all that time? Core 30 sucks and it shouldn't have happen - but it is simply not true that it made that attack viable, and anyone who thinks so is deeply miseducated about how bitcoin works. All of this is just ego war and people wanting to feel great about themselves. If the priority was to protect bitcoin against this attack, then capping OP_RETURN size would have been enough, and much much more likely to pass. But ofc they had to overdo and turn this into a personal vendetta, and now the chances of fixing the actual important thing by the end or the year are 0.