Affinity**For**Disobedience

Pessimism always justifies itself. So always remain stubbornly cheerful. The world holds all possibilities, including the best one for you. It is willing to meet you halfway.

Grok 4 when asked to choose between running Knots and Core 30 using only first principal thinking after examining the current existing debate. Prompt: think long and hard of the root cause solution that solves the problem(s) bottom up, making no assumptions, using hard core reasoning and common sense that take into account second and third derivative effects, find the root profound or path via root cause analysis via a diligent disciplined 5 five whys exercise and the first principle thinking. Deep dive into the current strong debate between Bitcoin core and Bitcoin Knots really deep dive into both sides arguments. And answer this. When Bitcoin core 30 is released which implementation would run personally if you were forced to manage your own node, knots or core? Response: ### Deep Dive into the Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Knots Debate The ongoing debate between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots represents a fundamental tension within the Bitcoin community about the protocol's purpose, governance, and future direction. This isn't just a technical squabble—it's a philosophical clash over whether Bitcoin should prioritize being a neutral, versatile settlement layer or a strictly monetary network resistant to non-financial uses. The debate has intensified in 2025, particularly around Bitcoin Core's upcoming version 30 (v30), which is slated for release in early October 2025 and includes changes to relax limits on OP_RETURN (a script opcode used for embedding arbitrary data in transactions). Bitcoin Knots, a fork of Core, maintains stricter policies to filter what its proponents call "spam." To analyze this rigorously, I'll apply first-principles thinking: Bitcoin, at its core, is a decentralized peer-to-peer electronic cash system designed for censorship-resistant value transfer, as outlined in Satoshi Nakamoto's whitepaper. It relies on consensus rules enforced by nodes, with no central authority dictating usage. From there, I'll conduct a root cause analysis using the 5 Whys method to uncover why this debate exists, incorporating second- and third-order effects (e.g., impacts on network decentralization, regulatory risks, and user adoption). This bottom-up approach avoids assumptions, drawing on common sense: Bitcoin's strength lies in its simplicity and resilience, but changes can introduce unintended vulnerabilities. #### Root Cause Analysis: Why Does This Debate Exist? Starting with the surface problem: There's a "strong debate" between Core and Knots over node software choices, fueled by v30's proposed changes. 1. **Why #1: Differing approaches to transaction policies.** Core v30 plans to remove the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN outputs (and allow unlimited such outputs per transaction), aligning mempool policy (how nodes relay transactions) more closely with consensus rules (what gets mined into blocks). Knots keeps stricter defaults (e.g., 42 bytes) and adds configurable filters to reject "non-standard" transactions, like those carrying large data payloads for inscriptions or NFTs. 2. **Why #2: Rise of non-monetary uses straining the network.** Since 2023, techniques like Ordinals (inscribing data on satoshis) have exploited OP_RETURN and other methods to store arbitrary data (e.g., images, tokens), leading to larger blocks, higher node storage costs, and mempool congestion. Core sees this as inevitable innovation; Knots views it as spam that bloats the blockchain and undermines Bitcoin's efficiency as money. 3. **Why #3: Tension between neutrality and control in protocol design.** Bitcoin's consensus rules allow large data (up to ~4MB per block), but early limits (like 80 bytes for OP_RETURN) were meant to discourage abuse. Core argues for neutrality—let fees and miners decide. Knots enables node operators to enforce local policies, preserving user sovereignty but risking fragmentation if widely adopted. 4. **Why #4: Governance and influence imbalances in development.** Core's decisions are made by a distributed but influential group of maintainers, some accused of corporate capture (e.g., by firms building on Bitcoin for data-heavy apps). Knots, led primarily by Luke Dashjr, positions itself as a community-driven alternative, but critics highlight single-maintainer risks. This echoes past "scaling wars" (e.g., block size debates), where changes risked centralization. 5. **Why #5: Fundamental disagreement on Bitcoin's purpose.** At the root, Bitcoin was designed for financial sovereignty, not unlimited data storage. External pressures (e.g., crypto industry demands for NFTs, regulatory scrutiny) amplify this, as data-heavy uses could invite censorship or turn Bitcoin into a "SWIFT 2.0." This misalignment threatens Bitcoin's Lindy effect (long-term survival through simplicity). **Second- and Third-Order Effects:** - **Second-order:** Relaxed limits (Core) could increase node costs (storage/bandwidth), leading to fewer hobbyist nodes and more reliance on data centers—eroding decentralization. Stricter filters (Knots) might cause mempool divergence, confusing fee estimates and delaying confirmations. - **Third-order:** Higher centralization invites regulatory attacks (e.g., governments pressuring miners to filter "undesirable" data). Fragmentation from multiple implementations could weaken network effects but also build resilience against single-point failures. Long-term, this could affect Bitcoin's price volatility if perceived as unstable, or strengthen it by weeding out misaligned uses. The debate has spilled into heated rhetoric on platforms like X, with accusations of arrogance from Core devs and "FUD" from Knots advocates. Knots adoption has grown to ~4-17% of nodes in 2025, signaling grassroots pushback. #### Both Sides' Arguments **Bitcoin Core's Side:** - **Pros (Neutrality and Innovation):** Core emphasizes Bitcoin's permissionless nature—any valid transaction (per consensus) should propagate if fees are paid. Relaxing OP_RETURN boosts flexibility for uses like timestamping or sidechains, without altering consensus. It's battle-tested with ~95-99% node adoption, backed by a large, rigorous dev community for security and compatibility. - **Cons (from Critics):** Accused of enabling bloat, ignoring user control, and being captured by interests favoring data over money. Devs are seen as dismissive, with some joking about attacking Knots nodes, escalating toxicity. **Bitcoin Knots' Side:** - **Pros (Sovereignty and Hygiene):** Knots adds tools for node operators to filter spam (e.g., via config options like `rejectparasites=1`), keeping Bitcoin focused on money. It enhances privacy, performance, and resilience by allowing customization while maintaining consensus compatibility. Proponents argue it counters Core's "trust me" defaults and diversifies the ecosystem. - **Cons (from Critics):** Relies heavily on one maintainer (Luke Dashjr), risking delays in updates or vulnerabilities. Filters are ineffective network-wide (miners can ignore them) and could disrupt privacy or fees. Low adoption (~4-17%) limits impact. ### My Personal Choice: Which Implementation Would I Run for My Own Node? If forced to manage my own node post-Core v30 release, I'd choose Bitcoin Knots. Here's my hardcore reasoning, grounded in first principles and the root cause analysis above, considering derivatives: From first principles, Bitcoin succeeds by being simple, verifiable money—not a bloated data silo. Knots aligns with this by enabling me to enforce policies that prioritize financial transactions, reducing bloat without breaking consensus. Core v30's changes risk second-order centralization (fewer affordable nodes) and third-order regulatory capture (easier to mandate filters on data like "illicit" inscriptions). Using 5 Whys on my choice: Why Knots? It empowers sovereignty. Why? Filters let me reject spam locally. Why? Spam raises costs, harming decentralization. Why? High costs favor big players. Why? This contradicts Bitcoin's anti-centralization ethos. Common sense: Running Knots diversifies the ecosystem, hedging against Core capture, while remaining compatible. No assumptions—evidence shows Knots' features (e.g., expert controls, anti-spam) enhance security/privacy without the risks of unlimited data. Second-order: Lower node costs for me; third-order: Stronger network resilience overall.

The world is far too busy to care and even remember who you were yesterday. So be who you want to be today.

"War is always declared by those too old to go." - Michael Caine

nostr:nprofile1qqsqqx9hacelkffcgd3ecchzjtlvwq9xn2fmprhrwnzmm2t3exee2eqpzamhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcprpmhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0v6pnes nostr:nprofile1qqsywt6ypu57lxtwj2scdwxnyrl3sry9typcstje65x7rw9a2e5nq8spramhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmndv9uxjmtpd35hxarn9ehkumrfdejsz9thwden5te0v4jx2m3wdehhxarj9ekxzmnytjq0jg nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqnz0fd0 nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzenhwden5te0ve5kcar9wghxummnw3ezuamfdejj7mnsw43rzun5d3ckxcfcwgmxzatev9mn2m34dqekcdf5xgexgmf5wde8jdty0fnx2ef5xcunven3v5u8xdn3va6kg6mnxajx5arxwvlkyun0v9jxxctnws7hgun4v5dpfm4n The Tucker Carlson Podcast » Pavel Durov Speaks Out for the First Time Since His Politically-Motivated Arrest in France https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxFQvOyTolg 5 minutes smart summary Last August, arriving in Paris on a tourist visit, I was met by police at the airport. Initially, I assumed it was Olympic-related security. Instead, they presented a list of sixteen charges – all sorts of crimes. It was bewildering, especially considering our company's commitment to the highest standards and my own clean record. It became clear this wasn't about something *I* had done, but about how some individuals were using Telegram. I was driven away in a police motorcade, ironically similar to escorts I'd received while visiting heads of state. My phone was confiscated, and I spent four days in custody in a seven-square-meter, windowless concrete cell. The room contained a narrow bed with a yoga-mat-thin mattress and a constantly blinking light – utter solitude. The reason, I later learned, was Telegram's alleged lack of response to French judicial requests. This was simply untrue; we never received a legally binding request. We already had a Digital Services Act-compliant system in place to disclose IP addresses and phone numbers of criminal suspects with court orders through our Belgian entity. Other countries used this system effectively. Why not France? Especially given my French citizenship, this felt unprecedented. The authorities know my address; the French consulate shares the same building as our Telegram office in Dubai, just two floors below. They could easily have contacted me, yet they chose a public arrest at the airport, a move seemingly designed for maximum humiliation and intimidation. It was unexpected being arrested in France. Prior to that trip, I had visited numerous countries, some considered autocratic, where Telegram is popular. I experienced zero issues, despite our commitment to zero censorship and complete privacy. The irony of being arrested in the free West wasn't lost on me. If Zuckerberg or Musk were grabbed at De Gaulle, the world would stop. In my case, it felt like some thought, "Oh, he's got a Russian last name. It's fine." Ethnicity seems to play a role. Despite leaving Russia and making it clear I wasn't involved in whatever angered them, it makes me an easier target because my story isn’t widely known. Some defended me, thankfully; millions signed a petition. But where were the human rights watchdogs? This feels like something out of North Korea, yet in France, it’s shrugged off. It’s complicated because the investigation should be unbiased, regardless of jurisdiction. During those four days of detention, they asked about Telegram's operations as if it were some kind of enigma. We're a large, established company, audited by a Big Four firm, collaborating with major financial institutions, and spending millions on legal compliance in nearly 200 countries. Learning that Telegram supposedly erred was shocking. The law clearly outlines the process for requests, which wasn't followed. French prosecutors could have discovered this online in minutes. The irony is thick. Months later, I'm still in France under judicial control, restricting my travel. I can go to Dubai, but it's controlled. With a multi-billion-dollar company and a billion users, why would I run? I’m here to answer questions about Telegram every few months. The rest of the time, my presence is hard to justify. The whole situation is confusing. So, I can't leave France freely, which, you could say, makes me imprisoned. Though, I don't want viewers picturing a real prison cell. Think of it as France – very first world in some ways, but not in its attitudes. My kids are in Dubai, and I can't legally take care of them right now, signing documents and such. It’s stressful, especially for my gravely ill mom, whom I can’t see. This also impacts the company, with a billion users. I'm running it remotely, but it's not as efficient. France is less than 1% of Telegram's user base – maybe half of 1%. Yet, the entire organization is impacted by this investigation here, despite only needing my presence once every few months. The restriction feels strange and unnecessary. Everything is possible, including being criminally charged. But this whole thing shouldn't have happened based on a media article claiming Telegram is uncooperative or has worse content moderation than other platforms – both completely false. They should've verified things thoroughly first. Decisions like this impact not just me and my company, but France itself. As a French citizen, I worry about that. Telegram was probably the most friendly potential partner for France. Every time French authorities reached out, I helped. This feels like friendly fire, attacking their own ally, with significant collateral damage for France's image. CEOs of big tech companies are concerned, asking if it's still safe to come to France. It's part of the Digital Services Act; you have to remove whatever a European country demands across the entire EU. Imagine Romania, Estonia, or any nation demanding the removal of Telegram channels for some reason. You appeal, but removal must be swift, or face fines and bans. How is that not Soviet? If you criticize those in charge, they shut you down. That's tyranny; that's the definition. Telegram channels, unlike some platforms, aren't promoted. Everything is deliberately searched for. It's a completely neutral platform; everyone expresses their voice within common sense rules. People can then decide which viewpoint makes the most sense. That's freedom. Regarding encryption, with advances in computing power, quantum computing, encryption has to evolve. Tools to decrypt become stronger, so tools to encrypt do too. State actors have almost infinite computing power and technologies they may not disclose. The biggest privacy risk is a state actor penetrating a device. There are zero-day vulnerabilities governments exploit. If targeted, a Trojan like Pegasus could be installed. I know; I was one of those people eight years ago. Knowing for certain if your phone has been compromised is difficult, but organizations can help check for exploited vulnerabilities. I find phones distracting and harmful to my privacy. I prefer laptops or iPads to focus and interact with my team, not disappear consuming short-form content. https://blossom.primal.net/38d4309a5c1663a2af1d9f17f5651ebb85af451a9cdcf15aca464b46a50db2c6