There is the up-to-date specification of the BIP-444 at https://bip444.github.io and the GitHub Community Discussion at https://github.com/orgs/bip444/discussions.

Gross incompetence: "If I had to fight spam, which I don't, bacuse I don't think we have to, how would I maybe consider doing it (...)." - @Murch from Bitcoin COREporation, 02:37:50.

Let's go! Activation: 1 February 2026. Repel spammers. Run Bitcoin Knots.

and there: https://x.com/citrea_xyz/status/1765415296935006475

Citrea Core v30

There had been another proposal of the same change to Core and it had been rejected two years earlier.

I deny the allegation that I pretended.

There were overwhelmingly more NACKs than ACKs so she shouldn't have accepted (merged) the change following your logic. Do I understand you correctly?

Disagree. She merged the destructive change on her own. She is one of the five people with such permission.

The question is about Bitcoin Core organization and one of their members. It is not about Bitcoin protocol.

If you settle for "filter proponents suggesting a change to block validation rules and standing by it" then the respect for the argument for the need of mempool policy rules comes logically, doesn't it?

That's okay. 💪

Peer-to-peer resilience 💪. https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAMHHROwJA5N%3DSfejF353oWFFsKVCtk5cpr9QkOv%2BZcqGDFz6oA%40mail.gmail.com

Let's do it. Would you like to contribute and spread the word about the idea, perhaps? I am going to contribute on the technical side and I already openes the discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list.