By removing the ability for Bitcoin Core clients to self-configure the OP_RETURN limit, Core devs are actually censoring those who wish to apply the filters (by their own definition of censorship).
If we didn't have Knots already available, we would have to scramble to build a new client. One that actually provides us with the ability to express our opinion over what happens on our hardware and mempools.
It's clear that Core isn't anti-censorship, but ironically pro-censorship.
They do not want you to even have the ability to set the filter. That is top-down decision making from a position of power.
What, are they afraid of the free-market? No! Because they literally cite the free-market to support their position. This is philosophically incongruent.
Alas, people don't seem to grasp what censorship actually is. Individuals not wanting to listen to other individuals is ostracism, not censorship.
Censorship is when power silences speech, not when individuals ignore speech.
I am not obligated to have any given transaction in my mempool, therefore I retain the right to ostracise whatever transactions I dislike.
If you think that's harmful to the network, then you can put in the work to convince me to adjust my filters - not rush through an update that completely takes away my ability to even have a filter.
#bitcoin #spam #filter #knots #core
mordaunt
npub14l…3x78w
2025-09-04 19:16:36 UTC
Author Public Key
npub14l0387z0ejfmnn3j38nnalg5p57952d84aqakqguhzx7p7pns2vqg3x78wPublished at
2025-09-04 19:16:36 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "1e2c99a9331a6a41827b2c33e3de3b09de4a7ca819a98ee56b47fd412601c3bf",
"pubkey": "afdf13f84fcc93b9ce3289e73efd140d3c5a29a7af41db011cb88de0f8338298",
"created_at": 1757013396,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"bitcoin"
],
[
"t",
"spam"
],
[
"t",
"filter"
],
[
"t",
"knots"
],
[
"t",
"core"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.primal.net/"
]
],
"content": "By removing the ability for Bitcoin Core clients to self-configure the OP_RETURN limit, Core devs are actually censoring those who wish to apply the filters (by their own definition of censorship).\n\nIf we didn't have Knots already available, we would have to scramble to build a new client. One that actually provides us with the ability to express our opinion over what happens on our hardware and mempools.\n\nIt's clear that Core isn't anti-censorship, but ironically pro-censorship.\n\nThey do not want you to even have the ability to set the filter. That is top-down decision making from a position of power.\n\nWhat, are they afraid of the free-market? No! Because they literally cite the free-market to support their position. This is philosophically incongruent.\n\nAlas, people don't seem to grasp what censorship actually is. Individuals not wanting to listen to other individuals is ostracism, not censorship. \n\nCensorship is when power silences speech, not when individuals ignore speech. \n\nI am not obligated to have any given transaction in my mempool, therefore I retain the right to ostracise whatever transactions I dislike.\n\nIf you think that's harmful to the network, then you can put in the work to convince me to adjust my filters - not rush through an update that completely takes away my ability to even have a filter. \n\n#bitcoin #spam #filter #knots #core",
"sig": "65843ccceda4c526589dbc98bbbff1a88c92b72fd6279271ecbbcbe04048eb3772456c6d97cdfcdfb26dc17164492842f15b562af1694e7d3e017ab3d9d9aed2"
}