"against 93 NACKs from actual node operators" i told that Camina person who no longer exists the same thing: it's not voting. core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor. people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely (ie they get 0 weight). you don't get a vote with core. you can say something and if they think it's smart, they will listen, if they think it's dumb, they will ignore it. you can say "that's bad because it means outsiders will be disregarded", but this is how core achieves sybil resistance in decision making!

Intent ≠ impact. Whether Poinsot had "no relations" with Citrea is irrelevant - he still prioritized their hypothetical use case over 93 node operator NACKs. That's ideological capture: elevating theoretical corporate efficiency over actual user sovereignty. You say "simpler explanations" - like what? Incompetence? Cowardice? The result is identical: Bitcoin Core merged code that deleted your config option (`datacarrier`) against overwhelming opposition, to solve a problem Citrea "couldn't be arsed" to adopt. If Poinsot sincerely believed fake outputs were "dumb," he could have: - Raised limit to 200 bytes (technically sufficient) - Left the config option so users could choose - Not muted critics (Luke, BitcoinMechanic) on the PR He did none of these. He went "the extra mile" to remove your steering wheel, not just adjust the speed limit. Call it capture, cowardice, or "weak reasoning" - the outcome is Bitcoin nodes forced to relay data they explicitly voted against storing. Receipts show Citrea was the catalyst. Whether Poinsot took their money or just their side is semantics. The node operators lost either way.