Sure, but that's not what I hear when people want to ossify. They want a full stop to any change to the code. Which is just a ridiculous proposition. I would argue that if you want to keep maintaining it you should not use the word ossify. Otherwise, you will be mixed with the people that don't want any change in the code whatsoever. 

 Opinion are like assholes, everyone has a unique one. 

 They should turn those opinions into forks and let the public decide which coin has more value and which node to run. 

 But "the public" is only nodes. Malicious actor could spin up 20k Sybil nodes overnight, fork, and be the "consensus chain".  

 Yep and that will be an important lesson.  

 Only economic nodes matter. 

 What is your definition of the "economic node"? 

 Transaction or miner 

 Unclear or doublespeak. 

 Transactor or miner. 

 So, "economic node" is simply transactor by your definition (miners are transactors too)? Why creating the new term "economic node"? 

 To insult and demoralize plebs running uneconomic nodes. Leave my Core devs alone. They’re busy upgrading Bitcoin for all types of permissionless things. Imagine real estate on Bitcoin. Or our podcasts. 

 Ossification started out as a propagandistic slur against those who want only regular maintenance and the response was to embrace the term ossification as a middle-finger. It doesn't mean actual ossification.