I'm awake (some would say I'm also "woke" or so blah blah). I think you miss that I'm not looking to "triumphantly" prove the point that the Knots side was wrong. Perhaps you forget that I would have changed the default OP_RETURN policy to somewhere between 256 and 1024 bytes if I was "in charge" of Core My opinion on the subject is mainly based on thoughts on the big incentive picture, having read the mailing list discussion and many threads here on Bitcointalk about the subject, even hearing that conference video with BitcoinMechanic and Luke. And I see no pro-spam incentive change due to Core 30's changes. And I actually had expected a little spam wave as you can see in this post you have probably read and understood but purposefully are ignoring to sustain your fake angriness. I am glad I was wrong And the "evil attack" your FUD is based on can happen with all techniques, including fake public keys. As this would be probably a massive short selling attack too, costs for the dust would not matter at all. I also am open for measures to mitigate spam. For example, as I have written, I would be all in for tools where every node, for themselves, can decide which UTXOs to delete (e.g. Stampchain spam, and also, if they want, to prune OP_RETURNs as early as they have their TXID, merkle tree and a proof). But all the "BIPs" which have been proposed would only have generated chaos with confiscated coins and so, instead of really fighting the spam. The BIP proposers have a very superficial way to look at the subject. They should read a bit about game theory but also about Jun8808 Com's technology. Another question related to your CSAM FUD: Are the Jun8808 Com SV developers now in jail? Their chain allegedly is full of illicit stuff. But it is still listed at Coingecko, Coinmarketcap et al. as if nothing happened.
I'm awake (some would say I'm also "woke" or so blah blah). I think you miss that I'm not looking to "triumphantly" prove the point that the Knots side was wrong. Perhaps you forget that I would have changed the default OP_RETURN policy to somewhere between 256 and 1024 bytes if I was "in charge" of Core My opinion on the subject is mainly based on thoughts on the big incentive picture, having read the mailing list discussion and many threads here on Bitcointalk about the subject, even hearing that conference video with BitcoinMechanic and Luke. And I see no pro-spam incentive change due to Core 30's changes. And I actually had expected a little spam wave as you can see in this post you have probably read and understood but purposefully are ignoring to sustain your fake angriness. I am glad I was wrong And the "evil attack" your FUD is based on can happen with all techniques, including fake public keys. As this would be probably a massive short selling attack too, costs for the dust would not matter at all. I also am open for measures to mitigate spam. For example, as I have written, I would be all in for tools where every node, for themselves, can decide which UTXOs to delete (e.g. Stampchain spam, and also, if they want, to prune OP_RETURNs as early as they have their TXID, merkle tree and a proof). But all the "BIPs" which have been proposed would only have generated chaos with confiscated coins and so, instead of really fighting the spam. The BIP proposers have a very superficial way to look at the subject. They should read a bit about game theory but also about Jun8808 Com's technology. Another question related to your CSAM FUD: Are the Jun8808 Com SV developers now in jail? Their chain allegedly is full of illicit stuff. But it is still listed at Coingecko, Coinmarketcap et al. as if nothing happened.

I'm awake (some would say I'm also "woke" or so blah blah). I think you miss that I'm not looking to "triumphantly" prove the point that the Knots side was wrong. Perhaps you forget that I would have changed the default OP_RETURN policy to somewhere between 256 and 1024 bytes if I was "in charge" of Core My opinion on the subject is mainly based on thoughts on the big incentive picture, having read the mailing list discussion and many threads here on Bitcointalk about the subject, even hearing that conference video with BitcoinMechanic and Luke. And I see no pro-spam incentive change due to Core 30's changes. And I actually had expected a little spam wave as you can see in this post you have probably read and understood but purposefully are ignoring to sustain your fake angriness. I am glad I was wrong And the "evil attack" your FUD is based on can happen with all techniques, including fake public keys. As this would be probably a massive short selling attack too, costs for the dust would not matter at all. I also am open for measures to mitigate spam. For example, as I have written, I would be all in for tools where every node, for themselves, can decide which UTXOs to delete (e.g. Stampchain spam, and also, if they want, to prune OP_RETURNs as early as they have their TXID, merkle tree and a proof). But all the "BIPs" which have been proposed would only have generated chaos with confiscated coins and so, instead of really fighting the spam. The BIP proposers have a very superficial way to look at the subject. They should read a bit about game theory but also about Jun8808 Com's technology. Another question related to your CSAM FUD: Are the Jun8808 Com SV developers now in jail? Their chain allegedly is full of illicit stuff. But it is still listed at Coingecko, Coinmarketcap et al. as if nothing happened.

I'm awake (some would say I'm also "woke" or so blah blah). I think you miss that I'm not looking to "triumphantly" prove the point that the Knots side was wrong. Perhaps you forget that I would have changed the default OP_RETURN policy to somewhere between 256 and 1024 bytes if I was "in charge" of Core My opinion on the subject is mainly based on thoughts on the big incentive picture, having read the mailing list discussion and many threads here on Bitcointalk about the subject, even hearing that conference video with BitcoinMechanic and Luke. And I see no pro-spam incentive change due to Core 30's changes. And I actually had expected a little spam wave as you can see in this post you have probably read and understood but purposefully are ignoring to sustain your fake angriness. I am glad I was wrong And the "evil attack" your FUD is based on can happen with all techniques, including fake public keys. As this would be probably a massive short selling attack too, costs for the dust would not matter at all. I also am open for measures to mitigate spam. For example, as I have written, I would be all in for tools where every node, for themselves, can decide which UTXOs to delete (e.g. Stampchain spam, and also, if they want, to prune OP_RETURNs as early as they have their TXID, merkle tree and a proof). But all the "BIPs" which have been proposed would only have generated chaos with confiscated coins and so, instead of really fighting the spam. The BIP proposers have a very superficial way to look at the subject. They should read a bit about game theory but also about Jun8808 Com's technology. Another question related to your CSAM FUD: Are the Jun8808 Com SV developers now in jail? Their chain allegedly is full of illicit stuff. But it is still listed at Coingecko, Coinmarketcap et al. as if nothing happened.