Oh I didn't say it was an intentional attack. I don't read minds. But if you're going to risk multi-month reorgs to put a temporary content filter that doesn't even accomplish what it tries to, I personally think attack is a valid characterization.
Another way to think of it is a reckless tantrum. It does somewhat depend on the motives, which I can at best speculate about. I tend not to think Luke, Mechanic, etc are actually aiming to undermine Bitcoin and give them the benefit of the doubt on that front. But I do think they've become a danger to it, ill intent or otherwise. Thankfully, I don't see much danger, as this really doesn't look like it's nearly as likely to do anything other than maybe subject some of the ill guided folks running it into monetary loss with replay attacks and similar issues stemming from a potential chainsplit (which is really why I bother saying anything, as the ones being put most in danger seem to be the ones least equipped to defend, or even realize what happened).
And bear in mind, I say all this as someone who is still running Knots 29.2. I'd love to see the matter of spam dealt with appropriately. But that is not what BIP-110 is. That all said, I also don't see it as the existential issue they do. UTXO set bloat seems better dealt with with things like Utreexo (which, in addition to spam, also addresses matters of dust, or simply a more crowded chain as it grows). Policy based options seemed like a good option, though obviously, they can be circumvented by a determined party.
There is definitely a degree to which we can and should shape data on the Bitcoin network, but at the end of the day, it does bump into some of the same realities that we run into on the broader internet around Net Neutrality principles. It's worth noting that not everyone involved in pushing BIP-110 see as much of a problem with a panopticon for content filter enforcement as some of the rest of us.
Another way to think of it is a reckless tantrum. It does somewhat depend on the motives, which I can at best speculate about. I tend not to think Luke, Mechanic, etc are actually aiming to undermine Bitcoin and give them the benefit of the doubt on that front. But I do think they've become a danger to it, ill intent or otherwise. Thankfully, I don't see much danger, as this really doesn't look like it's nearly as likely to do anything other than maybe subject some of the ill guided folks running it into monetary loss with replay attacks and similar issues stemming from a potential chainsplit (which is really why I bother saying anything, as the ones being put most in danger seem to be the ones least equipped to defend, or even realize what happened).
And bear in mind, I say all this as someone who is still running Knots 29.2. I'd love to see the matter of spam dealt with appropriately. But that is not what BIP-110 is. That all said, I also don't see it as the existential issue they do. UTXO set bloat seems better dealt with with things like Utreexo (which, in addition to spam, also addresses matters of dust, or simply a more crowded chain as it grows). Policy based options seemed like a good option, though obviously, they can be circumvented by a determined party.
There is definitely a degree to which we can and should shape data on the Bitcoin network, but at the end of the day, it does bump into some of the same realities that we run into on the broader internet around Net Neutrality principles. It's worth noting that not everyone involved in pushing BIP-110 see as much of a problem with a panopticon for content filter enforcement as some of the rest of us.