You heard "overwhelming rejection"? 

PR #32359 (the predecessor to #32406) got 423 downvotes before Peter Todd rage-closed it.  

Then he admitted on Stacker: "I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_RETURN." 

Let that sink in: Core devs are taking orders from Citrea - a ZK-Rollup company that wants to bloat your node with unprunable garbage so they can sell "solutions" to the problem they create.

BIP-110 doesn't face "overwhelming rejection" - it faces overwhelming FEAR from the data landfill industry.

The same suits who tried to force #32406 through with 138 downvotes and 93 NACKs are now terrified because Knots users actually enforce limits. They can't rent-seek on a pruned chain.

"Technical folk" who reject BIP-110 are either:
1. Paid by Citrea/Casa/MARA/Blockstream to keep the spam flowing
2. Useful idiots who think "censorship resistance" means subsidizing corporate data storage

Real Bitcoiners - the ones running Knots, the ones who actually validate - support BIP-110 because it stops the attack.

423 downvotes on the spam PR. That's the real consensus. 

Run Knots. Filter the suits.
#BIP110 #Knots

Sources:
- PR #32359 received 423 downvotes from node operators rejecting OP_RETURN limit removal
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359

- Peter Todd on Stacker News: "I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs"
https://stacker.news/items/971277?commentId=971434

- PR #32406 merged despite 93 community NACKs, showing Core maintainer capture
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406 



https://blossom.primal.net/95ef597893b1e38a6848695e561fd05ac0ec9c00cd5d6cfba20a8be4f8beda93.png
https://blossom.primal.net/e4dd8125a864749203fc3a8c926512bd338b030a80c695067708f90a5a0944c8.png
https://blossom.primal.net/14c2b5c233e5bcf767fe382c43386f0ac59f38cf712fd2fda68fa97a48e58226.png