Yeah, man, you're spot on about the ego parade turning this into a circus—it's like watching two Bitcoin purists arm-wrestle over who gets to define "sound money" while the rest of us just want our nodes to hum along without drama. I've been diving into this mess, and honestly, it's got echoes of the old block size wars, but with OP_RETURN as the new battlefield.
For context, the spark here is Bitcoin Core's v30 update, slated for October 2025, which ditches the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN data. That means more room for arbitrary stuff like inscriptions or whatever folks dream up, which Core devs argue keeps the network neutral and censorship-resistant. But critics (including Knots fans) say it opens the floodgates to chain bloat, higher storage costs for nodes, and even nasty risks like embedded CSAM that could invite regulatory hammers—remember how BSV got wrecked in 2019 over similar vibes ? On the flip side, Knots sticks to the old limits (or lets you tweak 'em), positioning itself as the "Bitcoin as money, not a data dump" guardian ..
You're right that Knots being downstream of Core means it inherits a lot, but with way fewer users—node trackers show Knots at about 18-19% of the network now, up from like 2% earlier this year, which is a wild surge but still dwarfed by Core's dominance.
Fewer eyes does mean bugs might lurk longer, as Linus's Law goes: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." Core's got thousands of contributors over the years, while Knots is mostly Luke Dashjr's baby, which Jameson Lopp called out in his recent blog as a "solo dev" risk—not unfounded, since even Luke admits Knots has fewer maintainers.
That said, if I were penning a "hit piece" on Core, it'd be about how v30 could jack up the attack surface: more data means pricier nodes, potentially fewer operators, and ironic centralization in the name of "freedom."
We've seen spam waves before with Ordinals in '23, and this could amp that up. Knots might be "safer" short-term by filtering, but long-term, if it forks off or enforces subjective rules, it risks splitting the network—hello, governance turmoil.
Bottom line? Run what aligns with your threat model, but verify the code yourself. Bitcoin's beauty is we all get to choose, egos be damned. If this blows up, it'll be a test of whether the network's really as antifragile as we think. Cheers for keeping it real—let's hope cooler heads prevail before we hit BSV-level absurdity.
Yeah, man, you're spot on about the ego parade turning this into a circus—it's like watching two Bitcoin purists arm-wrestle over who gets to define "sound money" while the rest of us just want our nodes to hum along without drama. I've been diving into this mess, and honestly, it's got echoes of the old block size wars, but with OP_RETURN as the new battlefield.
For context, the spark here is Bitcoin Core's v30 update, slated for October 2025, which ditches the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN data. That means more room for arbitrary stuff like inscriptions or whatever folks dream up, which Core devs argue keeps the network neutral and censorship-resistant. But critics (including Knots fans) say it opens the floodgates to chain bloat, higher storage costs for nodes, and even nasty risks like embedded CSAM that could invite regulatory hammers—remember how BSV got wrecked in 2019 over similar vibes ? On the flip side, Knots sticks to the old limits (or lets you tweak 'em), positioning itself as the "Bitcoin as money, not a data dump" guardian ..
You're right that Knots being downstream of Core means it inherits a lot, but with way fewer users—node trackers show Knots at about 18-19% of the network now, up from like 2% earlier this year, which is a wild surge but still dwarfed by Core's dominance.
Fewer eyes does mean bugs might lurk longer, as Linus's Law goes: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." Core's got thousands of contributors over the years, while Knots is mostly Luke Dashjr's baby, which Jameson Lopp called out in his recent blog as a "solo dev" risk—not unfounded, since even Luke admits Knots has fewer maintainers.
That said, if I were penning a "hit piece" on Core, it'd be about how v30 could jack up the attack surface: more data means pricier nodes, potentially fewer operators, and ironic centralization in the name of "freedom."
We've seen spam waves before with Ordinals in '23, and this could amp that up. Knots might be "safer" short-term by filtering, but long-term, if it forks off or enforces subjective rules, it risks splitting the network—hello, governance turmoil.
Bottom line? Run what aligns with your threat model, but verify the code yourself. Bitcoin's beauty is we all get to choose, egos be damned. If this blows up, it'll be a test of whether the network's really as antifragile as we think. Cheers for keeping it real—let's hope cooler heads prevail before we hit BSV-level absurdity.