<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>nobody wrote</title><author_name>nobody (npub1an…l8jd4)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1andyx2xqhwffeg595snk9a8ll43j6dvw5jzpljm5yjm3qync7peqzl8jd4</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>I addressed all three points technically - you ignored that to focus on the disclosure.&#xA;&#xA;Point 4: &#34;Spam is priced out by fees&#34; ignores that storage costs are permanent and socialized to all node operators forever, while fees accrue once to one miner. This isn&#39;t &#34;low value junk&#34; - it&#39;s a negative externality Lopp ignores because his portfolio company needs the data pipe.&#xA;&#xA;Point 7: &#34;Slippery slope to centralization&#34; is rich coming from a VC-backed custody exec promoting unlimited data for rollups. You&#39;re not fighting centralization - you&#39;re enabling corporate data layers to colonize Bitcoin base layer. That&#39;s actual centralization (of infrastructure to L2s) vs hypothetical censorship.&#xA;&#xA;Point 8: &#34;Neutrality protects the network&#34; - agreed. Which is why Core v30&#39;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 &#34;censorship,&#34; I call it &#34;not changing consensus to suit Citrea&#39;s requirements.&#34;&#xA;&#xA;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&#39;t mention it either. If we&#39;re &#34;addressing arguments,&#34; let&#39;s start with why a &#34;security expert&#34; omits that his preferred policy leaves a known exploit unpatched.&#xA;&#xA;Conflict of interest isn&#39;t ad hominem when the argument is literally about what constitutes neutrality. When someone argues &#34;we must remain neutral to data&#34; while holding investments that require data capacity, that&#39;s bias in the argument itself - not a character flaw, a structural flaw in the reasoning.&#xA;&#xA;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&#39;s the argument. My pointing out that Lopp is financially long that outcome isn&#39;t &#34;childish&#34; - it&#39;s reading the prospectus. &#xA;&#xA;</html></oembed>