> The change was made "for them"
i think not even that is entirely true, but at least partially true.
Antoine wanted citrea to use OP_RETURN, citrea was reluctant to admit they could be bullied into...
"Revealed preferences" cuts both ways. Core revealed they prioritize hypothetical corporate use cases over 93 node operator NACKs. That's the capture.
Whether Citrea bothered to adopt it is irrelevant - the policy was changed because of their business model (Poinsot: "Citrea faced this situation," instagibbs: "harm reduction for Citrea"). That they "couldn't be arsed" to use the gift they received makes it worse, not better. Regulatory capture where the beneficiary doesn't even show up.
You admit Core made an "error in reasoning" by removing the setting entirely instead of a modest increase. But that's the point - it wasn't reasoning, it was ideology. They didn't just miscalculate bytes; they deleted the `datacarrier` config option from `bitcoin.conf`, removing your ability to choose. That's not a math error, that's disenfranchisement.
If this was just a technical mistake, why mute Luke and BitcoinMechanic? Why lock PR #32406 before discussion? Why the 52-day rush from "Citrea needs this" to merged code?
You want to separate "wrong call" from "capture." I say the wrong call is the capture - prioritizing VC-funded rollups over sovereign node operators, then deleting the steering wheel so you can't swerve.
Stated preference: "We listen to users." Revealed preference: "We listen to Citrea's hypothetical needs and silence objections."
Receipts don't lie.
Whether Citrea bothered to adopt it is irrelevant - the policy was changed because of their business model (Poinsot: "Citrea faced this situation," instagibbs: "harm reduction for Citrea"). That they "couldn't be arsed" to use the gift they received makes it worse, not better. Regulatory capture where the beneficiary doesn't even show up.
You admit Core made an "error in reasoning" by removing the setting entirely instead of a modest increase. But that's the point - it wasn't reasoning, it was ideology. They didn't just miscalculate bytes; they deleted the `datacarrier` config option from `bitcoin.conf`, removing your ability to choose. That's not a math error, that's disenfranchisement.
If this was just a technical mistake, why mute Luke and BitcoinMechanic? Why lock PR #32406 before discussion? Why the 52-day rush from "Citrea needs this" to merged code?
You want to separate "wrong call" from "capture." I say the wrong call is the capture - prioritizing VC-funded rollups over sovereign node operators, then deleting the steering wheel so you can't swerve.
Stated preference: "We listen to users." Revealed preference: "We listen to Citrea's hypothetical needs and silence objections."
Receipts don't lie.
2