frustrated with both core and knots
would like to see a conservative well reviewed and maintained third option
will do my best to make that a reality
until then i will simply not upgrade my nodes
Login to reply
Replies (129)
.29 enjoyer
Libbitcoin v4 is promising
I think about libbitcoin often.
Nice!
Shrinking the IBD times will make so many things better.
the people fanning the flames on both sides are likely playing into or are part of a classic divide and conquer intel op.
they dont want us to improve bitcoin they dont want covenants
they dont want vaults
they dont want channel factories
THEY DONT WANT FREEDOM MONEY
they want us to fight amongst ourselves
sadly we have enough retards among us that it seems to be working
View quoted note →
I to would like a third option.
When the coretards fork the blockchain knots will be the only Bitcoin node client and then we are back to the same problem of centralisation.
We need a bunch of different clients.
Centralisation creates vulnerability.
We need to learn from what these bad actors at core are doing and mak efforts to prevent it happening again in future.
This fork is pretty much inevitably now that the spammers and pedos are all attacking knots with all this disinformation like this are.
Looking forward 🫡
The hard part is meritocrasy: with guys of influence like yourself, it be more prudent to assume subjugation.
Knots are not the ones trying to create a fork.
That's just coretard projection.
Keep us posted 👊
Or maybe admit the central attack vector for Bitcoin has ALWAYS been the Core Devs. And now they’re persona non grata - fully unacceptable or not welcome.
I disagree strongly with you. Half-measures are not a debate here.
We all know a handful of people who could change the code was never tenable. We need to stop making excuses, and start deciding IF there is a way going forward that isn’t Ossification right now, at this point.
And I don’t see a successful discussion about that happening, honestly, because Plebs don’t control Bitcoin anymore.
Ossification is the only option. Trust no one.
Now we're talking! Good.
I've somewhat landed on the idea that maybe the single biggest mistake of satoshi was to have a first party implementation of bitcoin. Maybe if he never passed on the control of core and abandoned the repo when he left, it would be better off. You'd have all the contributors at the time disperse into a few different projects that fork from core, but forced to maintain consensus with each other.
I realized this with nostr. It's genuinely the main thing separating it from all other "decentralized" networks. If fiatjaf had a nostr client, it would define what nostr is. Every normie looks for a "default app" for bitcoin, as with nostr. The absence of one is what makes it decentralized. They are immediately faced with the choice and realize that there isn't a easy default thing they can stay on. No app is more valid than another, the network is the rules they abide by to interoperate with each other. Everyone instinctively saw btc core as the point of centralization that it was, no one ever made that argument for bitcoin wallets, or nostr clients.
There has long been this propaganda that it's good that there aren't alternatives to core, and it's not a massive point of centralization to have a single repo define the whole network and this op_return debacle has just broken that propaganda. It took a massively unpopular update to wake people up to it, but theres finally popular demand for alternative implementations that follow consensus.
Luke Jr is not someone who should inherit the throne of bitcoin stewardship. He's not someone who can do what core did, managing a project and collaborating with others to maintain a whole network. But he can absolutely find a place offering one of many implementations for bitcoin, that people who like his software can run, as long as he doesn't do something that pisses them off. He should never develop for a majority of the network, but 5-10% of the plebs using his software poses no risks.
I'm fully on the filter side of this debate and even I'd admit that I'd rather have the current core team, than to have Luke lead core, or for knots to take the place of core today. But that's not happening. The most important thing right now is for there to emerge serious, responsibly led alternatives to core. And for that reason I am excited by this announcement.
Who appears more virtuous?
Stay humble and stack zaps ⚡️
Not upgrading is a solid choice. My plan was to continue with my Satoshi v27.0/ node indefinitely, but I made the switch to Knots because the configuration flexibility is superb.
A third option with more devs would be ideal, but I am happy with a single dev with a heavily scrutinized/audited source code by serious bitcoiners.
My new settings cut op_return in half and minimized the time my node relays free transactions. Getting garbage off the chain should be a top priority for any serious bitcoiner.
btcd
What do you have against Knots now???
It disqualifies the OP as a serious bitcoiner, and yourself it seems.
Assuming I understand your question, no the implementation can be different as long as the consensus rules are followed. The only thing is that if you have lots of competing implementations, I believe you can get accidental/unwanted forks in the chain.
Thank you for not running the core V30 malware.
Maximum decentralization is good for Bitcoin.
> Conservative and well reviewed.
That is Core to be frank.
Should it ideally reimplement consensus, or use core's engine?
There is no chatter of a hard fork, there is only fake news by the evil core supporters.
There's no hard fork, stop listening to liars
Bitcoiners are bored.
Same here
View quoted note →
🚀
Let's go 🚀
There's nothing worse about Core than it has been for years now. Nothing changed.
Luke and Ocean are retarded anyway.
Also, why is everyone pretending libbitcoin doesnt exist?
You wanna support something meaningful? Fund Eric Voskuil.
Same here
Ayeeee
Systems governed by humans will never be neutral. Pick your poison and stop playing the pretend games.
View quoted note →
Knots is means to an end.
As soon as the goal is met, of making Core something for the market not run (assuming they're sticking with their decisions), then I'll move to a more suitable node other than Knots that's basically the same but with a better team of good talent and sound mind and character.
If you think Odell is an influencer you are a retard
What do you think about a grant or training program specifically focused on libbitcoinkernel?
I'll run 30 when it’s released. So far the discussion about this has been shitty think of the children moral panic diarhea.
I’ll also not use a fork of Bitcoin that comes with an opinionated blacklist by default.
Why bother? If you play chess with a pigeon eventually they push of the figures and shit on the board.
Luke talking about a hardfork in leaked messages where he’s suggesting a potential method of rolling back the chain if CSAM was included in a block. Problem is he’s suggesting that the way to do it would be through trusted people holding multisig keys.
The point of bitcoin is nobody can roll back the chain.
Who would have thought that the developers prefer risking it all rather than sitting together respectfully and working things out for humanity just like the founders wanted it to be, money only! BTC is created to make the bankers obsolete
solid idea
Should I care about this. I just wanna stay humble and stack sats. Is that ok?
not fence sitting
i have been very active and deliberate about this shit
creating a false sense of urgency about which software people should run is the antithesis of bitcoin
has been discussed, voskuil does not seem interested
True !
I more meant funding the libbitcoin project than him specifically, but maybe that is what you meant too?
He refused funding to do something like create a funding org or grants for libbitcoin devs?
solid plan
Thanks!
Surely he must know that. Sounds a bit farfetched.
"I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea"
He was right about this.
Its hard enough keeping bitcoin backwards compatible.
This is how eventually a subset of users get rekt.
You
This might be out of date, but I found this interesting on the complexities of this
(I'm sure you're already more up to date on it ☺️. I'm just sharing this as I found it interesting)
Believe me when I say this is difficult, but read udi’s post
Yes for sure
I had a bunch of people at my Meetup that have no idea this is going on and I’m not telling them.
What is lib bitcoin
Is the implication meant to be that Bitcoin Core isn't conservative, well reviewed, and/or well maintained? If so, why do you think that?
Or is your desire to have additional implementations that are conservative, well reviewed, and well maintained? If so, do you think that's a better use of limited developer talent than focusing on making Bitcoin Core better?
When I read your post, I get the feeling that you think about "Core" and "Knots" as teams that each move with a single shared purpose, as if under the direction of an individual. That might be true for Knots, which effectively has a single developer, but it's not how I see the Bitcoin Core project, whose contributors are often in disagreement with each other (if usually only about the best way to achieve a particular goal). Maintaining that environment where independent contributors can easily collaborate, are free to express their differing opinions, and can create single-topic software forks (like PT's librerelay or the BIP148 activation client) if they feel out of alignment with the other devs seems to me like a better use of scarce talent than creating more implementations for the purpose of having more teams.
That’s a fair point! Any thoughts on how we get more options in the best way possible?
The more the merrier
Go have a nap. You'll feel better
Puts last year's discussions on ossification into context really with all the squabbles.
Be fascinating to see what would come out if all this energy were directed instead to L2/L3 solutions and additional work on mining and hash power decentralisation. Humans are similar to electricity grids - vast energy losses in trasmission!
Thank you for that perspective
Exactly. I'm fine staying on v28 for a few years
if this is the best drama we have u know we are struggling this cycle
NOTE OF THE YEAR🫡
thinking something similar to the latter but with more maintainers
There is no technical basis to oppose lifting the OP_RETURN limit in mempool policy. The amount of emotional thinking in this space is wild.
Oh okay thought it was just me
Soft and hard forks are distinguished by backward compatibility with previous versions of the Bitcoin software or lack thereof.
Burring your head in the sand is always a solid plan. 👌 Nothing can go wrong.
That’s nonsense. Even the other side admits that.
Complete BS.
Bitcoin is just another victim of the old EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH corporate playbook, a documented strategy used by tech giants.
"Maxis" were maybe the first (unwillingly?) actors of this playbook
Good luck.
I'll be upgrading to v30.
Libbitcoin enters the chat
I am using it with LND - works great, recommended 🙂
You enjoy the child porn as well? Nice!
Unless of course you are not a jew and do not like the child porn on your home servers.
Go to 29. You may not get 2 years out of 28.
Because the devs have 0 BTC exposure and being paid handsomely in FIAT.
3rd option would be cool roll back Taproot and fix OP_RETURN at 21 bytes.
if libbitcoin is to be adopted at scale i think voskuil needs to lead the charge
there are a bunch of us ready to throw a ton of support behind him if he is willing
Just go buy BSV and leave BTC alone.
hope you are just trolling.
Satan Core 1.0 is looming .. I sh*t you not.
What versions are people running?
View quoted note →
@jungly Are there devs looking for funding?
Eric says to me "Anyone who is serious about sponsoring a Libbitcoin dev is free to contact me or them."
So, I think whatever prior effort you made was the wrong angle or through the wrong contacts.
Probably should run it by whoever is working on that these days (the charlatan?)
fence straddling? 😂
So that discounts that he clearly mentioned it?
Get Eric Voskuil on citadel or listen to his Bitcoin takeover interviews. The project is solid but, from his words, hasn't taken any third-party funding.
As a dev, libbitcoin is ok to get running and hack on, but it's missing the type of project management that core has. It's not really possible to find out what needs to be done, unless it's behind closed doors. All their comm channels seem dead
Libbitcoin is the way.
Why?
Core solution is just accepting that Ordinals are inevitable in the chain and minimize damage, allowing people to use OP_RETURN as preferred option to upload this data.
Instead of storing in Witness or another solutions that increase UTXO set, that will be an increase in RAM requirement for nodes, a true menace for decentralization.
Satoshi was not the best coder, but he was an amazing "Bitcoin architect," applying knowledge from other disciplines. I think in the future, Bitcoin development needs a formal process to get input from non-coders who understand economics, law, etc.
Agreed.
Bitcoin's greatest weakness is it is software. Gold is hardware.
Yes. Eric is looking for funding for contributors. He doesn't need the funding himself. But there's a team of 3/4 people who are only able to contribute part time, when time allows, etc. We need to get the funding to them.
@ODELL pay the men!
Do it @ODELL ! The more implementation options we have, the more decentralized bitcoin becomes. This is the way.
Still no
I won't upgrade either.
#Bitcoin
View quoted note →
You're still on Core version 28?
Why store that data in the blockchain at all?
Any progress on this? @ODELL
View quoted note →
Configurou watchtower?
As long as it's not gold covered tungsten
Because people is paying the price
Did a search for alternatives without the drama of the wrestling match, found these:
btcd
Floresta
Gocoin
Libbitcoin
bcoin
Anyone running one of these?
Yes 🎯💯
Regardless of how much a customer is willing to pay, they cannot get a taco at McDonald’s.
Become humble and grow up. Bitcoin doesn’t need you or your well reviewed and maintained third option. Neither does it need Luke and his disciples. Put your ego on your pocket and get focused again. Seriously.
The road to hell is built with good intentions. Luckily the majority have to choose to walk on the road for it to become reality.
Since hell hasn’t become reality yet, safe to say the divided majority have spotted some kind of hell at the end of both roads as it stands right now.
Story ain’t over yet. Because i see a good end to this, and we’re not there yet either.
I’m humble enough to know that I don’t know how this will turn out so I’m not doing anything
Finally we agree on something, freaking hell it was hard.
@ODELL - hello. What do you need fren?
Not updating your node keeps you in the spam camp. Not a "neutral' move.
Cool lmk when u do
This is the way! Core is/was the "reference client". The implication was always that there should be many competing implementations of bitcoin.
Decenralize it so much that no entity could reasonably corrupt bitcoin through infiltration of dev teams.
This point makes non sense.
anything to report on that front in the last 5 months?
View quoted note →
