pull down to refresh

Diversity may be bad for compatibility, but good for centralization. I will let you decide which is more important.
this territory is moderated
BTC is already the most decentralized money we've ever had. I'd hate to have my node fall out of consensus or see a chain split occur just because I was virtue signaling over MuH ImPleMeNtaTiOn sO sPeCiaL and CoRe Is CeNtRaLiZinG BTC
I don't think a chain split will happen if many people run knots because, like I said, its just core with extra options. But we've seen issues with implementations that aren't a direct fork of core like btcd (golang). If you were running btcd node when this happend... https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bug-took-down-part-of-the-lightning-network
...then your node would have been kicked off the network, unable to get new blocks until patched. If thats the cost of being marginally more decentralized, then I don't think it's worth the tradeoff IMO. But run whatever node you want. It's not my problem if BTC rejects your node or you end up creating a shitcoin in the process.
reply
Yes, I will 🙂
reply
Hm... Now i read my comment. I ment to say decentralization, not centralization...
reply