Citrea was indeed what started the discussion in the developer mailing list. Just because their "workaround" around the OP_RETURN limit is currently spamming the UTXO set with "fake public keys" in their transactions (although on a very small scale compared to Ordinals Stampchain). The idea was to nudge them to use OP_RETURN instead (removing the limits), which would be less resource-hungry for full nodes.
That's the whole "Citrea issue". Building a "Core corruption story" around that is quite lame, I think.
And thus I'm very disappointed from those developers who are now fueling this anti-Core shitstorm. Because they should know better.
You realize that Bitcoin Contributors helped beat the system and then said "hey look, we can beat the system, we should change it anyways!"
All while getting $15 million dollars too! They also recked Testnet 3, or tried. (which I get no one cares about this, and I don't either, but it is still interesting).Kinda gay.
I mean whatever, but I feel like there should be good enough disclosure so that a person like GMaxwell knows why a proposal made it across his desk. Esp if it is changes that could potentially hit all of us that choose to continue to support Bitcoin Core. *shrug*