pull down to refresh
409 sats \ 38 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3 Sep \ on: After the Core/Knots Hard Fork... Which version will you run and why? bitcoin
There won't be a hard fork, the whole debate has gotten very moronic.
Core should be deprecated and implementation forks should be the norm, but Knots incoherence is doing more harm than good towards that end. #1204434
The people most vocal about running Knots don't even seem to understand remedial Bitcoin, terrible optics.
reply
What do people most vocal about running Knots not understand about Bitcoin? Blanket vague unsubstantiated statements like that create more knots node, because you will cast aspersions and then ignore the qualified responses.
reply
A lot of things. Knots runners generally believe that if 51% of the network 'runs knots' then they win. Like it's a simple majority vote.
What they win i'm not sure they can articulate... maybe an end to spam or a return to 'monetary bitcoin' (this is how influencers explain it).
By that logic a government/business could spin up tons of nodes with different rules/different mempool policies and filter transactions that way... but of course it doesn't work that way.
Knots users also think that knots has different rules or consensus rules it abides by... which isn't true.
They also think that their knots nodes store different things in blocks than core nodes do (after they're mined) which is not true so 'run Knots to save bitcoin' seems poorly articulated/understood.
Eventually knots people figure out that their nodes will permanently store v30 transactions but they don't realize this yet.
Knots users also generally believe (i've seen this articulated) that the only way today to get a jpeg on-chain is by going to a miner which is not true.
reply
Knots runners generally believe that if 51% of the network 'runs knots' then they win. Like it's a simple majority vote.
No they don't, but the more people running knots the more likely it is that miners adding jpegs to blocks will get orphaned, increasing the risk of loss of income, which they way against the transaction fees that they can get. I don't know anyone who thinks 51% is a significant number. So basically you don't know remedial things about knots advocates position.
He who knows only his own side knows little of that.
Edit: knots users also think that that knots has different rules or consensus rules.
Citation needed. OP_Return limit is a policy or Bitcoin Core, the node implementation most nodes have been running since Satoshi.
They also think that their knots nodes store different things in blocks than core nodes do (after they're mined) which is not true.
No, again. Wow, if this is the calibre of person on the Core side I really do suspect that bitcoin is being attacked by the 50 cent army.
This is a much less intelligent response than I was expecting.
reply
with all due respect these are the overwhelming positions/views/takes from knots advocates i have seen in kratter's videos (that i linked to) and in many, many others.
They may not be your position... but they are a very common position/articulated understanding from knots advocates. Just read the video comments.
As far as the orphan block thing i mean maybe it's true but i'm skeptical. My understanding of the argument is that compact relay is slower for miners mining spam that fewer nodes include... so they're at a disadvantage.
I have also read that larger miners, in such an instance, will be better connected to the network and have a material advantage relative to smaller miners that depend on compact block relay.
Plus smaller miners win blocks less often... so are more vulnerable to orphan blocks anyway as compared to foundry for example that can mine their own blocks consecutively.
Smaller miners with custom templates are more vulnerable than larger ones... increasing centralization risk which is what we don't want. I think the jury is still out on this stuff either way without more data.
Citation needed. OP_Return limit is a policy or Bitcoin Core, the node implementation most nodes have been running since Satoshi.
Not true? op_return is technically consensus the size of op_return is relay policy. Op_return of 100kb is consensus valid and has been for years fwiu that's why it's possible in blocks today just not common because it's really expensive and relay policy is standard 80 bytes.
reply
You're using YouTube comments as a reasonable sample set? I bet it was only a subset of stupid comments, but idiots are always overrepresented in YouTube comments.
they are a very common position/articulated understanding from knots advocates
Maybe I just ignore stupid comments more than you but I don't think picking the dumbest people on one side of any argument is a wise approach.
About orphaned blocks, you're getting into very much not remedial territory, and I'm not qualified to comment. But it's certainly something reasonable and intelligent and informed people can investigate whether without resorting to ad hominems and staking their relations on conclusions in advance.
the size of op_return is relay policy That's what I said. What was not true?
reply
Start by telling me why you, personally, run a mempool?
reply
That's not the start of an answer to the question of what people most vocal about running Knots don't understand about Bitcoin. It's simply a means of casting aspersions, exactly what I said you'd do. Next when I respond and it gets too dicey for you you'll ignore the qualified responses and engage in ad hominem attacks or gaslighting.
Why don't you just explain the remedial things that knots advocates don't understand, win me over as a non-aligned node runner. It's remedial bitcoin so it should be easy to explain in a paragraph.
reply
Knots users don't understand why they run a mempool or relay in the first place, or why op_return exists.
Since you dodged a very simple question you seem to agree.
reply
This is a protocol fight not an implementation fight. If the protocol allows an implementation to include CSAM then the whole protocol will fail. Wait till miners get sued for distribution of CSAM and node runners get prosecuted for storing it.
reply
Goalpost shift, started with relay filters. Knots is losing on technical merit every time I poke my head in... and I'm reluctant to say that because I'm no fan of Core as noted.
I honestly couldn't tell you the latest Knots position because it's changed so many times. It's probably changed again since I've started writing this response.
reply
Relay filters are to avoid relaying undesirable content. Not all content that a node runner may want to filter out is illegal, it might be a matter of preference. Or it might be a matter of principle filtering out anything over a certain size to ensure that bitcoin is held to a higher monetary standard. But that content may also be illegal and knots node runners and advocates are legitimately getting concerned that their concerns are not getting addressed with a reasonable amount of care and consideration.
reply
I agree that node runners should absolutely be able to apply preferences to their relay policies. I have no issue with the position that Core should not remove user preference settings.
That is however NOT the totality of Knots position nor what they are losing on.
reply
Keep in mind that knots users cannot accept 'co-existence' with core because in that case the spam transactions keep getting through.
It's either dominate (to over 90% required to effect the relay network iiuc) OR fork to change the rules/create a separate network those are the choices fast approaching for knots.
reply
Indeed, they've narrative trapped themselves. Completely out-kicked their coverage, painted into a corner, wrong hill to die on... choose your metaphor.
It'll be a tragedy to see the anti-Core momentum get lost if they continue on this path.
reply
So how much CP will you allow on your machine? Is a few JPEGs an ok amount of CSAM for you?
reply
Try that fud a few dozen more times and see how far you get.
I'm anti-Core by default and you can't even capitalize on that.
Fast approaching for core you mean. They are the ones that decided on this course of action. I didnt care until they made an issue of it.
reply
current core users, for better or worse, could take the rip van winkle test and go to sleep for 5 years, probably let their node just run...
and when they woke up it would still be consensus valid. because 100kb op_returns for better or worse are consensus valid. So nothing has fundamentally changed.
(not saying you shouldn't update node software... you should but consensus hasn't changed that's my point)
Knots users, and i'm not judging them in any way, are being put in a position to store whatever on their nodes, depend on the goodness of random people, or fork and change the rules so they know they won't object to what's getting into blocks.
Those are their current options.
reply
If it's not the totality then maybe what you're experiencing as a move of the goalpost is just a bigger goalpost than you can see with your tunnel vision.
reply
You can't even explain why you run a mempool, with hysterical hyperbolic responses like yours you can't blame anyone but yourself for not understanding your position.
reply
I didn't say why I run a memepool because it is none of your business and has nothing to do with the debate, it was just a rhetorical tactic to avoid answering the simple question I asked you, to qualify what you said in your first comment.
You eventually did and the answer was woeful.
reply
So you don't know.
There is no way to prevent CSAM being included in the data using one of many possible ways (e.g. in witness, which is what ordinals use). It's already most likely included in existing chain.
Why is this a protocol fight? HTTP, SMTP, FTP all include CSAM (by some definition of "include").
reply
This is exactly my point. This goes way deeper than relay policies... that's why knots will fork eventually when they figure out what their options are.
reply
deleted by author