The "CSAM thing" is illustrative of the issue. There is a range from bad to worst. That doesn't make any of it good.

Core are technologists. The worst kind of fool.

Yes, it's a very good idea to run Bitcoin+LND with filtering of non-monitary transaction data. Do you want your node to fill up with CSAM, malware and product data then use Core or do you believe that bitcoin as a monitary network then run Knots.

I've been running knots + lnd for a couple of months. No issues.

Because most nodes run with default settings, changing the default OP_RETURN policy materially alters network behavior. It isn’t a consensus change, but it operates as a de facto protocol change. A very poorly thought through one at that.

My brain is working fine. Go back and read your own documents.

I have lots of things I'd rather be doing. Core seems intent on disrupting my space.

Not sure. Has core decided to stop attacking Bitcoin's protocol?

It is beyond reckless for Core 30 to force this change to the protocol.

Then why make the change v30 is proposing? Seems that it isn't necessary. so round and round we go.

Fast approaching for core you mean. They are the ones that decided on this course of action. I didnt care until they made an issue of it.

OP_RETURN isn’t a knob you can twist like stereo volume. It’s baked into the protocol at a fundamental level. Changing it would be like replacing the dot on an ‘i’ with a triangle. Small on the surface, but breaking the rules of the language itself.

This is a protocol fight not an implementation fight. If the protocol allows an implementation to include CSAM then the whole protocol will fail. Wait till miners get sued for distribution of CSAM and node runners get prosecuted for storing it.

You'll change your tune once the chain starts getting spamed with CSAM. There are plenty of people that will do it just because they don't like Bitcoin.

op_return is a part of the consensus. You can't carve off little bits here and there when it's convienient to you and think that consensus isn't impacted.

Running a Lightning node isn’t a profit center and that’s fine. I run mine for control: self-routing with Alby/Zeus, custody on my terms, no dependency on third parties. I don’t rebalance, I don’t chase ROI. It’s not about yield; it’s about sovereignty.

The miner who validates a block with CSAM in it will be held liable for distribution.

I agree. This is a fundamental difference in worldview. At the current trajectory, a hard fork seems likely. If miners recognize they’re validating CSAM embedded in the chain, they’ll have to take it seriously and align with the Knots approach. I can’t imagine a miner willingly including a block that contains CSAM. That would be an extremely bad look.

Some sick fuck is going to spam tons of CSAM into the chain. There are plenty of people hostile to Bitcoin who will do it just for kicks. This change is going to force a hard fork.

Those are monitarty transactions. Is it spam? No. I'm not filling up op return with stupid shit.