Wouldn’t more people running knots contribute to the decentralization of Bitcoin instead of everyone unilaterally running core as things (effectively) were just a couple years ago. From where I’m sitting anything that disrupts a single point of failure (core) is a win for the network. Competition keeps things more honest.

Yeah, unlimited OP_RETURN was always enabled and datacarriersize has always been a deprecated feature of bitcoin That's why people are just seeing it now 🙄

let me untangle your muddled logic with actual rigor. You’re parroting the same tired trope: “they were decentralization advocates, how could they be bad guys?” That’s a textbook fallacy — appeal to past virtue. History of intent is irrelevant if present incentives diverge. This isn’t philosophy; it’s game theory. Bitcoin doesn’t care about your sentimentality. Filters do work — if you actually understand how consensus mechanisms evolve. Soft forks and policy filters are defensive membranes, not censorship layers. They restrict attack surfaces, prevent trivial relay spam, and preserve network health. That’s not “influence to make unilateral changes”; it’s the opposite: minimizing the vector space where unilateral changes could destabilize consensus. The “false narrative” you’re swallowing is that decentralization is static — as if someone who once defended it can never drift into centralizing power. That’s naive. Incentives mutate. Social reputation is weaponized. Capture doesn’t announce itself. If you think decentralization is about trusting personalities rather than validating rules independently, you’ve already forfeited your position. Wake up? No, level up. Learn the distinction between protocol-level consensus (rules enforced by full nodes) and relay-level policy (filters applied at mempool entry). Confusing the two is exactly what propagandists rely on. If you can’t separate those concepts, you’re not defending Bitcoin — you’re defending your own ignorance, loud enough to hope no one notices. Your confusion stems from conflating consensus-critical validation with mempool relay policy. Consensus rules are immutable unless every full node independently accepts them; relay policy, on the other hand, is a spam-mitigation layer that has zero impact on final settlement validity. Pretending the latter equates to unilateral protocol change betrays a fundamental ignorance of layered architecture. Bitcoin’s defense against centralization is emergent, not static: adversarial incentives shift, Sybil vectors expand, and bandwidth asymmetries evolve. Filters are not “control levers” but entropy dampeners — they collapse attack surfaces that would otherwise metastasize into systemic throughput degradation. If you seriously believe policy propagation equals governance capture, you’ve confused TCP/IP heuristics with BFT consensus primitives. #bitcoinknots #bitcoin #nostr #anarchyⒶ #decentralisation #freedomtech #blockchain #freepalestine

I’d like to see a more fleshed out theory on Knots being a takeover. Aren’t Core doing the same thing, making unilateral changes to Bitcoin despite significant push back? I thought it was policy to avoid contentious changes? If Knots goes rogue, someone will fork and we’ll move to that. I’d rather Core just revert and then go back to that.

Right because exceptionally low-trust people who are switching clients to protest bcore developer behavior will somehow all of sudden become total lemmings if knots pushes a consensus breaking update. Holy fuck you devs are social retards

Because they're being paid by shitcoiners.

Just a reminder that bad actors come into movements all the time to try and subvert or degrade the movement. Happens to all movements. (occupy wallstreet, black lives matter, bitcoin, religion, etc) Any group could TRY to subvert bitcoin or subvert the other group. So be careful to not to think your team could do no wrong. I think it's dumb to think that current knots users would just go along with anything knots did. They just turned on cores idea, why wouldnt they turn on knots if they starting doing something that didn't align with their values? I'd be interested to hear what you think knots would do that could somehow subvert bitcoin from being decentralized. At this point knots is just mainly just reimplementing existing things, not exactly crazy since we're still running a lot of the same rules currently on most nodes. Just because there is a window open that allows spam, but in a bad way (UTXO bloat). Doesn't mean we should open the front door to "solve" one problem and very likely introduce another. (Aka it doesn't solve the actual technical problem, just incentivizes spammers to use the front door) Maybe we screwed up and the initial "bug" that allows the problem needs to be patched. If there was a bug that let me put my movie files on a server meant for medical information, and my files could never be deleted, it would be patched ASAP. The biggest issue, as I see it, is the larger data limit or potentially no limit. It makes for poor incentives.