https://blossom.primal.net/50826c2455da12ef2e51ab16be4255ecfc4f76d4f198b8f0ff91fad0e92ea02b.mp4

Nice shoe

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. https://blossom.primal.net/162ef285bea51db2a3d0c2033de0d6bc4e516989460646ab6d769a08a8d564c4.jpg

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. https://blossom.primal.net/162ef285bea51db2a3d0c2033de0d6bc4e516989460646ab6d769a08a8d564c4.jpg

You just proved my case better than I could. "Core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor... people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely." That's capture. Not vote-rigging - club membership. You admit Core is a closed syndicate where 93 node operators get "0 weight" because they're "not in the club," while Citrea-connected devs (Lopp - Citrea investor, Poinsot - pushing Citrea's use case) get their PRs merged in 52 days. "Sybil resistance in decision making" is a fancy way of saying unaccountable dictatorship. Bitcoin nodes are supposed to be sovereign - you run the software, you choose the policy. Instead, Core has "sybil resistant" governance that filters out the actual users in favor of the GitHub committers and their VC-funded friends. If the community gets "0 weight," who gets 100%? Maintainers with corporate sponsorships (Block/Spiral, Chaincode) pushing changes for specific companies (Citrea) against the explicit will of node operators. That's not sybil resistance - that's regulatory capture with extra steps. You call it meritocracy. I call it removing the steering wheel and telling the passengers they don't get a vote because they're not in the driver's club. Thanks for confirming the capture thesis. https://blossom.primal.net/6e7c43156649283ffe9d24d4dc0af9eb29851d2089f43260a0e182c1e1394e30.jpg

You just proved my case better than I could. "Core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor... people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely." That's capture. Not vote-rigging - club membership. You admit Core is a closed syndicate where 93 node operators get "0 weight" because they're "not in the club," while Citrea-connected devs (Lopp - Citrea investor, Poinsot - pushing Citrea's use case) get their PRs merged in 52 days. "Sybil resistance in decision making" is a fancy way of saying unaccountable dictatorship. Bitcoin nodes are supposed to be sovereign - you run the software, you choose the policy. Instead, Core has "sybil resistant" governance that filters out the actual users in favor of the GitHub committers and their VC-funded friends. If the community gets "0 weight," who gets 100%? Maintainers with corporate sponsorships (Block/Spiral, Chaincode) pushing changes for specific companies (Citrea) against the explicit will of node operators. That's not sybil resistance - that's regulatory capture with extra steps. You call it meritocracy. I call it removing the steering wheel and telling the passengers they don't get a vote because they're not in the driver's club. Thanks for confirming the capture thesis. https://blossom.primal.net/e9175d1cb5cb234b7efb76cdb8c55db9a903d2e6579dc1597aea664da70fe9e6.jpg

Lovely NFT

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.

https://blossom.primal.net/7ccd460abfe0d5a0799c74bc2ac6348664d75f77c8903a58dbd865ab8bde2805.jpg

By the Chinese.

You admit the reasoning was "weak and self-contradictory" - that's not an error, that's ideology masquerading as engineering. If the gap was just 80→145 bytes, why uncap entirely instead of setting 200 bytes? Why delete the `datacarrier` config option from `bitcoin.conf` entirely? Because it was never about the bytes. It was about removing your ability to say "no." You say Citrea was just "an example." The receipts say otherwise: - Todd: "asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea..." - Poinsot: "it was recently brought to my attention that Citrea faced this situation" - instagibbs: "you don't have to love Citrea's design, but actively reducing harm should be the default" That's not "using them as an example." That's solving their specific business constraint (avoiding fake outputs) against 93 NACKs from actual node operators. The "economic gap" theory is the cover story. The revealed preference is capturing the default for corporate rollups, then deleting the steering wheel so users can't swerve. You see the "error." I see the capture.