That's interesting adamstgBit. *Is* it *always* the case that >10K inputs is indeed spam? *Is* there *ever* a case where it is not? Can the same movements be accomplished by splitting it up into multiple transactions to avoid triggering the spam rejection?
These limitations are very bad. Wasn't Bitcoin supposed to be censorship free? Who gets to decide what kind of transactions we are going to limit? As an example, the sigops limitation that Gavin implemented in Classic is not a solution of any kind. For example, if we had confidential transactions today they would not work due to this. There are so many potential use cases that it is nearly impossible for us to consider everything.
Who pays the Core Dev Team? Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free? My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members! They are giving us something I couldn't do myself. That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front. I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.
They're a group of volunteers. Some are employed by MIT (Wladimir IIRC), and some are employed by Blockstream (Maxwell, Wuille) and such. However, most of them are just volunteers from what I know.
Lauda has done a yeoman's job representing the positions; thank goodness someone has the patience.
I try my best, as long as the other person (especially when lacking knowledge) is willing to listen to reason, facts, data and such.