Long-time Bitcoin Core developer (not one of the bad ones) and US citizen Jon Atack has been detained in El Salvador. His phone and passport have been taken from him.

That's FUD

Their excuse was that the fixes were "controversial" (the attackers objected to fixing them) Yes, Knots has both fixed for a long time now.

More review is always helpful (and helps the reviewer learn the codebase). A good way for reviewers to see what needs review the most, and to publish their reviews clearer would help for visibility too. (Note that most of Knots is developed as Core PRs) There's also various ideas on the GitHub Issues: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues

Liar

The sooner proposals like CTV are implemented, the sooner blocks can get smaller. Assuming of course we deal with spam too (so it doesn't just fill up the gained space) CTV/CSFS and spam filters go together

Liar

To be clear, I'm not affiliated with OpenSats myself

You're missing Core pivoting from willful negligence to active malice. You're missing this being a problem that needs resolution 2 years ago. You're missing that Core denies miners using it that freedom. You're missing that nodes matter. You're missing that real L2s don't use op_return, only scams.

Don't let the bad actors trick you into thinking Bitcoin Core 30 allows you to re-enable the datacarrier limit: 1) Along with unlimiting the default, they also broke it further. datacarriersize=83 now (as of Core 30) allows for 83 outputs totalling 830 bytes of spam, instead of just 92 bytes of spam (9 bytes of which couldn't be arbitrary) as in Core 29 and earlier. 2) datacarriersize is marked as deprecated, and explicitly planned to be removed in a future release (likely silently, since "it's already deprecated"). 3) Core never fixed the Inscription exploits (CVE-2023-50428 and CVE-2024-34149) which allow spammers to bypass the datacarriersize limit. The only way forward now is a mass migration to Knots. Not the way I wanted things to go, but Core has given us no other choice. Once this is resolved, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, and encourage the creation and use of multiple clients.

If there isn't sufficient independent funding for developers (eg, OpenSats), devs are more likely to be tempted to accept funding by bad actors.

Yes

We have a new support channel on the Knots Discord https://discord.gg/tuz5aW7K

It already has more than Core, despite the FUD

Core is _expanding_ it, not just leaving it as-is