What you want is a change to the consensus rules to remove transactions you don't like. This whole debate is about the standardness rules (which allow p2p unconfirmed tx propagation) which are being relaxed.

Blocking propagation of tx's achieves nothing when the block is mined and your client has to request the tx from the p2p network anyway. Ive taken a very negative view of spam, and non-monetary transactions too. I'm pro-single client (Core), and anti-spam, pro-monetary usage. You can be all these things and anti-censorship.

The problem is that you cannot deterministically determine if something is spam. Its an immutable property of the internet. If spam was easy to detect and filter, we would never see a spam email again. Its not as simple as looking for a 'bad op code'.

The more heavy handed one gets with the filter, the more false positives for monetary transactions, and thus explicit censorship is enabled. There is also the issue that by creating more rules -- which is what Luke is proposing, you end up with more knobs to enforce censorship. And absolutely Luke wants control over what is and isn't allowed to be done.

Its never been about the first order effects -- Its about building capabilities for censorship. Give a censor (like Luke) an inch, and he will take a mile. History has demonstrated this! You have to understand that your true adversary is the spammers, and they are wilful, and will dedicate their pathetic lives to trying to bypass any standardness filters. Such is the internet, and always has been. The more you filter, the harder they fight back, and inflate the UXTO set, increase node resources required etc.

Bitcoin has been striving for to achieve transaction "indistinguishability" with taproot -- for censorship resistance. You cannot have both things. Tx's can be indistinguishable and uncensorable, or distinguishable and censorable.

What has been proposed makes no difference if you run knots. The only "advantage" in running knots is that you want to support a fork chain if and when it happens. Knots is already blocking propagation of monetary transactions in the form of lightning force closes. Lets not make it worse by running broken clients.

If you want to change the consensus rules, that is fine -- Its looking more like Luke's consensus changes to his minority fork client will proceed, and you can enjoy his fork chain, and leave the people who understand whats actually happening in peace.

You might want to refresh your memory on what happened last time a vocal community member and minority-client community thought Bitcoin was going in the wrong direction.