I've come full circle on the Bitcoin spam / Core vs. Knots debate. At first, my knee-jerk reaction was: Spam on the blockchain sucks. Particularly the more nefarious type. It's horrifying, as far as I'm concerned. And the Knots crowd seem to wanna do something about it, while the other side didn't. Therefore, I should support Knots. I've since learned that none of what the Knots side proposed will actually stop spam. This is an objective fact. And, if they weren't going to fork the network, I might still have supported their effort, just because attempting to stop spam, even if you think it isn't possible, seems like a better attitude. I'm not a big fan of people who don't do anything about a problem because they think there is no solution. That being said, changing the network's consensus rules is a step too far. I lived through the blocksize war. It's risky. And it may have been a worthwhile pursuit if it actually solved the problem. But, by their own admission, BIP110 doesn't solve the problem, spam would still be possible on-chain. And, by their own admission, what this fork really is, is an expression of their unhappiness. Bitcoin is money, obviously. But it is permissionless money. And if that means we cannot actually stop people from using it for other purposes, as despicable as those may be, throwing your toys out of the cot without actually achieving anything concrete, seems like a counterproductive, juvenile, and pointless pursuit.