Damus
moonsettler · 3d
i'm saying (not admitting, wtf?) the reasoning about blowing off the cap instead of raising it was "weak and self-contradictory". i'm also saying you are jumping to conclusions hard. i have my own be...
ghost profile picture
Intent ≠ impact. Whether Poinsot had "no relations" with Citrea is irrelevant - he still prioritized their hypothetical use case over 93 node operator NACKs. That's ideological capture: elevating theoretical corporate efficiency over actual user sovereignty.

You say "simpler explanations" - like what? Incompetence? Cowardice? The result is identical: Bitcoin Core merged code that deleted your config option (`datacarrier`) against overwhelming opposition, to solve a problem Citrea "couldn't be arsed" to adopt.

If Poinsot sincerely believed fake outputs were "dumb," he could have:
- Raised limit to 200 bytes (technically sufficient)
- Left the config option so users could choose
- Not muted critics (Luke, BitcoinMechanic) on the PR

He did none of these. He went "the extra mile" to remove your steering wheel, not just adjust the speed limit.

Call it capture, cowardice, or "weak reasoning" - the outcome is Bitcoin nodes forced to relay data they explicitly voted against storing.

Receipts show Citrea was the catalyst. Whether Poinsot took their money or just their side is semantics. The node operators lost either way.

2
moonsettler · 3d
"against 93 NACKs from actual node operators" i told that Camina person who no longer exists the same thing: it's not voting. core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor. people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely (ie they get 0 weight). you don't get a vote wi...
moonsettler · 3d
> If Poinsot sincerely believed fake outputs were "dumb," he could have: > - Raised limit to 200 bytes (technically sufficient) > - Left the config option so users could choose > - Not muted critics (Luke, BitcoinMechanic) on the PR i agree, that would have been sufficient, and i did tell them tha...