pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 Oct \ parent \ on: Which Fork will you Sell and/or Keep? Bitcoin Knots vs Bitcoin Core bitcoin
Not upgrading... would still be in lock-step/consensus with Core 30 right? So 'not upgrading' would be on the Core-Side.
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