Ah yes ok, you're right, any project on GH with a handful of people that have merge access is decentralized.

it is gaslighting and it matters because it's different. increasing op_return because of slipstream is just stupid for many reasons that I will not bother explaining, mempool being consistency is even worse and saying it's to give a better path for spam is also false..Network demand from who? not from node runners certainly, if we go to 2017 the network was "demanding" bigger blocks from users to miners. things change if we say listen there is a legitimate, business, use case wich is Citrea weather people like or not but we have to decide how to accommodate their need, either 1-do nothing and they will harm the network in other forms but let them be. 1b- take hostile measures if they harm the network. 2 - increase op_return for their needs with a tailor sized for them. this discussion is focused on the actual use case, instead Core lead people discussion about the sex of the angels with things like what is spam after all, do filters work and all kind of crap. it's has nothing to do with spam mitigation, or miner centralization or whatever, it's a specific, clear, and legitimate use case that no one discussed, bc Core could just say hey this is what we need to discuss, we propose op_return increase, and if most of the community was against it they would need to come up with a solution, instead core blownup op_return limit way more than it was needed when if everyone knew the why and the need they would be better informed to provide solutions.

I never said it's not FOSS or transparent. You said it's "decentralized" it's not, maybe it was a bad choice of wording for what you actually mean. Linux Kernel is FOSS and has thousands of contributions and it's transparent, maybe it's also decentralized even though only Linus gets to decide what gets merged, maybe not since it's just one guy, maybe 6 like Core makes it decentralized.

well, that's nothing, the other dude just vibe coded a bitcoin UASF client.

having 100s of contributes proves its FOSS, that is different from decentralized in what gets merged and assuming that project owners don't talk between themselves or that have no control or decision on what gets merged is naive.

or maybe you are falling for the gaslight I guess I will never know. the problem is what Antoine, a core dev said was exactly what ended up happening a change in the op_return and so happens that it was what Citrea needed, and guess what, his rationale makes sense and the solution makes sense, and there were other solutions or approaches. Maybe if this were clear and transparent from the start people could discuss what actually matters, the citrea use case. Instead Core is gaslighting everyone that it's about slipstream, or fee predictions or the best one, mempool consistency lmao.

TY but I know exactly how it works, as you can see changes are aprroved/merged by the maintainers like I said, who have permissions to do so. The fact that you think there are no leaders just because there is a flow chart on how to submit PRs and think they don't have contact with anyone is naive, since there are owners of the repo/project, they also decide who gets what permissions on the repo. People need to get this in their head Core is not a democracy or decentralized. If Core maintainers decide to go against a community decision they can, they can and SHOULD be opinionated on what kind of implementation they want. It would make things clearer for everyone and push others to make their own node implementations, and that is what helps decentralization over node implementations. But back to to your OP check the link i shared.

"... the demand for inscription incentivized people to build private bridges to miners to bypass other standardness limits such as the maximum transaction size in order to store even more data." "While these restrictions are not binding anymore for whoever wants to store data onchain, they still unnecessarily restrict constructions with time-sensitive transactions. Protocol designers want those transactions to be standard for a good reason: they don’t want to rely on private bridges for security-critical transaction broadcast. Those transactions need to relay properly on the more censorship resistant public network. It was recently brought to my attention that Citrea faced this situation with their Clementine bridge." source:https://antoinep.com/posts/relay_policy_drama/

Today I learned that Core is a "decentralized" group of devs, that have no contact or affiliation with anyone, I guess no one knows who they are and they probably live in some cave and have no access to the outside world. Maybe the are just AI bots with a random rotation of permissions. I guess we don't need to build trustless tech we just need a decentralized group of devs on a repo.

Core is not a "decentralized" group lol. wtf does that mean? lmao Can I merge something to Core? Core are devs and some have control over the repo and merge access, not all of them, I can submit a PR and ultimately someone decides and allows a merge. So there is a well know group of Core devs and guess what they talk and get to consensus on needed changes. Antoine Poinsot said on record that citrea would need to include extra data and op_return would be the less harmful way.

Slipstream existed to bypass filters, wich means filters had an effect, Slipstream bypassed the p2p network, that comes with downsides like higher fees to Slipstream and lack of censorship resistance. Core change was not because of that, it was because of citrea needs, citrea could not rely on something like slipstream, that's why core changed op_return.

I just saw usa maps to download, does it work worldwide?

Sometimes I use HereWeGo its not bad.