rich1.0Sound Money (npub1sg…55u3l)https://nostr.now/npub1sg0j78carjndmg7qjfstk2y0e23r5cvxwn3u9z5cgnk5jnh4vxqs355u3lnjumphttps://nostr.nowThe beauty of open source isn’t just about submitting PRs, it’s about aligning code with Bitcoin’s cypherpunk vision: individual sovereignty, resistance to centralized control, and decentralized sound money. I don’t need to be a coder to see when changes, like OP_RETURN limit increases, risk straying from that ethos. Thousands of devs contribute, sure, but meritocracy doesn’t mean every change is automatically aligned with Bitcoin’s original purpose. Community pushback (through discussion or running nodes like Knots) is part of the checks and balances, not “crying.” Dismissing philosophical concerns as technical ignorance misses the point: Bitcoin’s code serves its ideology, not the other way around. I’m happy to learn more about Core’s process, but let’s also discuss how changes preserve Bitcoin as decentralized money. How do larger OP_RETURNs align with that vision?