I do understand the incentive but just pointing that out does nothing to address Lopp’s argument. Returning to attacking the person making the argument and ignoring the argument is just childish. Ad...
I addressed all three points technically - you ignored that to focus on the disclosure.
Point 4: "Spam is priced out by fees" ignores that storage costs are permanent and socialized to all node operators forever, while fees accrue once to one miner. This isn't "low value junk" - it's a negative externality Lopp ignores because his portfolio company needs the data pipe.
Point 7: "Slippery slope to centralization" is rich coming from a VC-backed custody exec promoting unlimited data for rollups. You're not fighting centralization - you're enabling corporate data layers to colonize Bitcoin base layer. That's actual centralization (of infrastructure to L2s) vs hypothetical censorship.
Point 8: "Neutrality protects the network" - agreed. Which is why Core v30's unlimited OP_RETURN (pushed while undisclosed conflicts existed) is the violation. BIP-110 restores the neutral default of 83 bytes that existed for 10 years. You call it "censorship," I call it "not changing consensus to suit Citrea's requirements."
The CVE: You completely ignored that BIP-110 patches a registered security vulnerability (CVE-2023-50428) with 99.8% precision and zero false positives on 4.7M transactions. Lopp didn't mention it either. If we're "addressing arguments," let's start with why a "security expert" omits that his preferred policy leaves a known exploit unpatched.
Conflict of interest isn't ad hominem when the argument is literally about what constitutes neutrality. When someone argues "we must remain neutral to data" while holding investments that require data capacity, that's bias in the argument itself - not a character flaw, a structural flaw in the reasoning.
You want to talk points? Fine. Explain why Bitcoin should abandon 10 years of anti-spam policy for 100KB unlimited data to benefit a Thiel-backed rollup. That's the argument. My pointing out that Lopp is financially long that outcome isn't "childish" - it's reading the prospectus.
Point 4: "Spam is priced out by fees" ignores that storage costs are permanent and socialized to all node operators forever, while fees accrue once to one miner. This isn't "low value junk" - it's a negative externality Lopp ignores because his portfolio company needs the data pipe.
Point 7: "Slippery slope to centralization" is rich coming from a VC-backed custody exec promoting unlimited data for rollups. You're not fighting centralization - you're enabling corporate data layers to colonize Bitcoin base layer. That's actual centralization (of infrastructure to L2s) vs hypothetical censorship.
Point 8: "Neutrality protects the network" - agreed. Which is why Core v30's unlimited OP_RETURN (pushed while undisclosed conflicts existed) is the violation. BIP-110 restores the neutral default of 83 bytes that existed for 10 years. You call it "censorship," I call it "not changing consensus to suit Citrea's requirements."
The CVE: You completely ignored that BIP-110 patches a registered security vulnerability (CVE-2023-50428) with 99.8% precision and zero false positives on 4.7M transactions. Lopp didn't mention it either. If we're "addressing arguments," let's start with why a "security expert" omits that his preferred policy leaves a known exploit unpatched.
Conflict of interest isn't ad hominem when the argument is literally about what constitutes neutrality. When someone argues "we must remain neutral to data" while holding investments that require data capacity, that's bias in the argument itself - not a character flaw, a structural flaw in the reasoning.
You want to talk points? Fine. Explain why Bitcoin should abandon 10 years of anti-spam policy for 100KB unlimited data to benefit a Thiel-backed rollup. That's the argument. My pointing out that Lopp is financially long that outcome isn't "childish" - it's reading the prospectus.
14❤️9❤️1👀1👍1
