pull down to refresh

5 sats \ 2 replies \ @megaptera OP 24 Sep \ on: It's Knot a Serious Project by James Lopp bitcoin
Adding more information to this discussion. A comment by Giacomo Zucco source: https://xcancel.com/giacomozucco/status/1970539573080936718)
Luke sent the FBI after his fellow Bitcoin Core contributors
False statement. You provided no source to verify it, and I know the opposite to be true.
Knots is a dangerous "solo dev" project that does not have the necessary level of peer review
Misleading statement, unless the same is also said about LibreRelay and Bitcoin Knobs, and much more emphasis is put on Btcd.
He became much more vitriolic toward Bitcoin Core and now makes outrageous claims that it's compromised and trying to destroy Bitcoin
Qualified as your personal opinion, but logically contradicted by your own examples of him being way more vitriolic in the past with many (cf the Voorhes and Silk Road cases you listed, contrast them with his tolerance of libertarian claims more recently): by any metric I can think of, Luke has gotten way less vitriolic over time. In general, I'm not sure using dev political opinions to dismiss software (which is 99% of your pamphlet) is the game you want to play, in order to defend Core. Be my guest in case.
abused his position of maintainer of the Gentoo Bitcoin Core package to enable his custom blacklist rules by default
This statement is contradicted by the following claim by Luke's own statement "it did not occur to me at the time that the spam filter was even included". You provided no source to verify otherwise.
There is also controversy around Ocean's Datum protocol which is a competitor to Stratum V2
Misleading statement. DATUM will be a competing protocol to Stratum V2, once the latter will actually realize the miner-side-template-production. I think as of now OCEAN/DATUM is literally the only case of minin-side-template-production active on any pool. Even then, it will be a competing protocol, but not competition to his pool: Luke confirmed OCEAN will support SV2 as well once it gets traction.
When you get into Luke's personal opinions on bitcoin mixing (further down) this particular decision will make more sense. [...] This is relevant to my earlier point about Knots breaking the Whirlpool mixing protocol. He doesn't care because he thinks mixing is wrong and people shouldn't do it.
False statement. Luke publicly stated support for coinjoin transactions in many occasions, and you provided no source of him saying otherwise, even if you claim you do in the first part of the mention. Indeed, Knots has always been relaying all coinjoin tx by Whirpool. It just happened that, for no good reason that I know of to this very day, some weird type of NON-coinjoin txs by Whirpool (tx0s) contained Op_returns uselessly larger than Core's historical limit (which was still Knot's limit).
Luke appears to be a geocentrist. "By the way, the Sun really orbits the Earth, not vice-versa."
Misleading statement, since it insinuates this view is as unpopular as the others listed below (monarchy, masturbation, sedevacantism, etc.), at least among scientifically literate people. It's not. This seems to me to be a honest mistake based on your own parroting of the common "midwit-science" pop-view, naively misinterpreting pre-Einstein (but actually pre-Mach) Galilean relativity. In modern General Relativity, geocentrism is literally just as valid as any other reference frame choice (you just adjust the curvature and/or metric). Even if Newtonian physics, geocentrism is a valid choice as long as the Earth rotates to account for centrifugal forces.
Where has a large portion of the social and technical community's time and attention been spent? I tend to agree that Luke & Co have been rather poisonous as of late.
False statement, offered without evidence, but also clear logical contradiction in the context of the panphlet. As explained (and paradoxically very well illustrated by your STASI-like dossier), Luke has been significantly less vitriolic and controversial than ever in the recent years and months. If large portion of the social and technical community's time and attention been spent supporting or attacking the claims of somebody with very low people-skills, who was traditionally ignored by most due to his unpopular opinions and eccentric personality, that's clearly caused by something else. I have theories.
write
preview
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 24 Sep
Even if Newtonian physics, geocentrism is a valid choice as long as the Earth rotates to account for centrifugal forces.
All other planets also circle around the sun, the most massive object in our solar system.
How can you change the frame of reference to make them circle the earth, too, without crossing their orbits?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @adlai 24 Sep
change the frame of reference
the notion of a frame of reference is independent of that of the center of any given orbit. "frame of reference" simply means choosing some origin for your coordinate system1; although a stationary frame of reference is easier to work with, in practice the convenient frames of reference all track either the sun or the earth.
there is also the question of whether to use an inertial frame, or a rotating one. a properly rotating frame of reference2 can have coordinates of locations on the surface of the earth remain fixed; and in these coordinates, the sun would indeed appear to orbit the earth, because the addition of the virtual rotation requires a "fictitious" force3.

Footnotes

  1. Some of the common choices. ↩
  2. I link directly into the middle of the article, although you might want to skim the introductory section as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Inertial_frames_and_rotation ↩
  3. After posting I found that there's an entire article about these. ↩
reply