pull down to refresh
171 sats \ 13 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Oct \ on: Which Fork will you Sell and/or Keep? Bitcoin Knots vs Bitcoin Core bitcoin
Both are trying to make Bitcoin more like ethereum and not less, it's a false feud, monetary maxis don't have a dog in the fight and just have to not upgrade.
Maybe if there's an important enough fix needing a backport we can crowdsource an enterprise focused fork from an old base.
How is Knots trying to make bitcoin more ethereum-like? Knots is updating with the status-quo filters in place that core has used for 15 years.
Running knots means you are protesting the decision by core, and you want some of the enhanced features and of course the filter options to remain in place for your own node.
Core is changing mempool policy to be more like ethereum sure, but neither "side" is pushing a fork.
reply
Filters are noise.
This is the signal.
reply
reply
By switching to Knots you're endorsing this roadmap through action, when you need not do anything at all.
No one is forcing you to update, nor should you ever run latest in production.
reply
You are correct that updating at this point is not required.
I disagree that running knots today is endorsing Luke's "roadmap" in bitcoin. I run the software that best suits my needs at the moment.
At this moment, I also have a need to demonstrate my objections to Core's "roadmap"
Why would Core dev's attitude so drastically change from this tweet in 2023?
To me, it is an issue of Governance over bitcoin. (which should not exist.)
A "reference" client's dev team does not push contentious updates without a clear and present danger, and broad social-consensus support. If any single dev team gains a governance authority, like what the ethereum devs had when "deciding" that it was time to go Proof of Stake, then we have a much bigger problem than spam on our hands.
Knots breaking 20% of the network exceeds the UASF 15% during the Blocksize war. I believe there are sound motivations for demonstrating action.
reply
I run the software that best suits my needs at the moment
Tell me one thing you need Knots for that isn't satisfied by an old version of Core, v27 for example.
At this moment, I also have a need to demonstrate my objections to Core's "roadmap"
You can virtue signal on the GitHub repo while running v27
To me, it is an issue of Governance over bitcoin. (which should not exist.)
Oh you'll love my other posts then
reply
Tell me one thing you need Knots for that isn't satisfied by an old version of Core, v27 for example.
The client flag. Also, this is the default QT page for spam filtering in knots, the software makes it easy to refuse relaying inscriptions to other nodes pre-confirmation.
You can virtue signal on the GitHub repo while running v27
No I can't, because the Moderators banned "non technical" discussion. In addition, 20% alternative client use for the first time in bitcoin's history is more effective than "virtue-signalling"
https://coin.dance/nodes
Archiving Core is one thing every Bitcoiner should agree upon.
I agree with that. Have a great day.
reply
That is a lot of 'configuration' options...
How do you/we know that any of that 20% of nodes is real???
Those nodes don't pay fees. They don't compete for blockspace.
They don't (necessarily) hold the keys to Bitcoin either.
What is the point of 'spooling up more nodes'... if it could be 1 node or 2 or 5 or 100 nodes per person? Are those nodes actually being used?
just have to not upgrade.
Not upgrading... would still be in lock-step/consensus with Core 30 right? So 'not upgrading' would be on the Core-Side.
reply
No, consensus is, else is a hardfork.
Not upgrading is resistance to changes to consensus.
Both Core and Knots are in lock step wanting to bring covenants (and therefore ethereum scale trash) to Bitcoin, upgrading Core or switching to Knots are supporting ethereumification.
reply
Interesting. Thank you for your perspective... I was with the understanding that covenants had been put on the 'back burner' for the time being.
If changing op_return size creates this kind of conflict imagine what a covenants soft-fork would do and that's why we haven't had one. Does larger op_returns mean covenants are more likely? My understanding is that covenants are additional spending conditions.
reply
It's a red herring, op_return relay size isn't consensus. The fact the fight over it is so cringe will make covenants easier to astroturf, Core and Knots unity narrative.
They're not on the back burner, it's simply that the stage is being set. Optics are everything.
reply
no. social-consensus is on the filter side and has been for 15 years since satoshi created them in 2010.
Please be aware there are 2 ways to use the word "consensus" in bitcoin:
Technical- consensus rules are what define bitcoin, as opposed to relay policy for example. Two nodes can have different policy, yet remain in consensus.
Social / non-technical / natural language- social-consensus means that there is wide support and limited dissent for something.
Core devs used to agree that social-consensus is very important in FOSS software development:
Today, Core is breaking social-consensus by pushing this controversial relay policy update- but they are not breaking technical consensus, and neither is knots.
The question is, what changed with the Core dev team?
reply