.29 enjoyer

Libbitcoin v4 is promising

I think about libbitcoin often.

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.

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.

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.

What do you think about a grant or training program specifically focused on libbitcoinkernel?

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.

Should I care about this. I just wanna stay humble and stack sats. Is that ok?

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.

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)

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.

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!

btcd seems a good candidate

GitHub

GitHub - btcsuite/btcd: An alternative full node bitcoin implementation written in Go (golang)

An alternative full node bitcoin implementation written in Go (golang) - btcsuite/btcd

if this is the best drama we have u know we are struggling this cycle

thinking something similar to the latter but with more maintainers

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

I am using it with LND - works great, recommended 🙂

@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? 😂

Libbitcoin is the way.

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.

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!

I won't upgrade either. #Bitcoin View quoted note →

Any progress on this? @ODELL View quoted note →

Configurou watchtower?

Yes 🎯💯

Finally we agree on something, freaking hell it was hard.

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.

anything to report on that front in the last 5 months? View quoted note →