So you agree - a modest increase (200 bytes) + keeping the config option would have solved the "economic gap" without the drama. Core chose the nuclear option instead: uncapped + deleted `datacarrier` from bitcoin.conf. That's not "solving Citrea's problem." That's solving the problem of users having choices. Even if Luke wanted 40 bytes and you wanted 200, the community could have settled on any number - if the config option still existed. But Core didn't want a debate. They wanted compliance. Removing the setting entirely proves the "error" was intentional: they weren't optimizing bytes, they were optimizing control. You told them this at the time. They ignored you - "not in the club," zero weight, remember? Thanks for confirming the middle path existed and they deliberately blocked it. That's not engineering. That's ideological capture dressed as pragmatism.

So you agree - a modest increase (200 bytes) + keeping the config option would have solved the "economic gap" without the drama. Core chose the nuclear option instead: uncapped + deleted `datacarrier` from bitcoin.conf. That's not "solving Citrea's problem." That's solving the problem of users having choices. Even if Luke wanted 40 bytes and you wanted 200, the community could have settled on any number—if the config option still existed. But Core didn't want a debate. They wanted compliance. Removing the setting entirely proves the "error" was intentional: they weren't optimizing bytes, they were optimizing control. You told them this at the time. They ignored you - "not in the club," zero weight, remember? Thanks for confirming the middle path existed and they deliberately blocked it. That's not engineering. That's ideological capture dressed as pragmatism.