predictions on when knots forks into bitcoin holy edition?
Login to reply
Replies (149)
My non-expert prediction:
After it has the majority of nodes and it is clear to everyone which one has gone rogue...
If Core forces a hard fork, it creates Bitcoin Dropbox Edition, and Knots carries on with Bitcoin's purpose intact.
what change would core make to consensus to make it easier to store data in bitcoin?
it seems much more likely that luke would hardfork to make filters consensus, as that is the intended (but ineffective) purpose of filters: to block data transactions.
you don’t think luke would fork bitcoin if he had the majority client share? He is religiously motivated.
If the religion is user choice, consider me devout.
luke knows filter don’t block spam, he’s not dumb. He’s trying to build a cult following so he can make consensus changes unilaterally. I can’t think of any reason he would be lying so blatantly.
It’s not user choice, you are choosing bitcoin core + whatever 100s of changes luke wants to make.
Luke has some interesting views on hard forks. 🤠
Bitcoin Core is eliminating settings users can choose. Reducing options.
Its amazing people trust this guy
then revert the one change if you feel strongly, you don’t need 100s more from luke
Maybe. But he's worked against an accidental hard fork in the past, and Core is the one implementing a controversial change despite backlash from Bitcoiners. Knots is preserving filters and settings that were already in place.
I'm just saying, regardless of who is more likely to actually take that step if it goes that far, Core initiated the divisive change.
Frfr
You mean forking the code to create a new option, in addition to Core and Knots? Not a bad idea.
I think there is a need for that, from ones careful enough not to create accidental hard forks.
i’ll wait 😂
Why does Core have to make it hard for node runners to revert the change, by removing settings that would give them that ability? Should a whole new version be needed, when the settings could have been retained?
because the setting has 0 effect on anything
That's beside the point, and arguable.
But I appreciate the respectful back and forth.
If it has zero effect, but is this important to so many Bitcoiners, why take it away and lose so much trust?
they can’t answer specific questions because they are ideologically motivated, not technically or well reasoned.
Well that's compelling.
That's an exaggeration on your part. I think we're currently at a point where 95% of bitcoin users don't want to or can't technically understand the issue. they just listen to what their favorite influencers say - the whole issue is political at this point
Pretty sure Luke ran to the feds when his coins got stolen. So thinking he could be working with them never gives you pause?
settings thats have zero effect…
why remove code that has zero effect? Really? It’s called dead code, it’s a maintenance burden.
That is a non sequitur. Luke got social engineered and lost millions of dollars. He no longer has a financial motivation for bitcoins success.
He ran to the feds... They have a channel now.
Not impossible they didn't make a deal. Luke goes on their payroll, Luke gets the chance to get even with those who did him dirty. Feds splinter the Bitcoin movement like they do everytime. This is the playbook. The whole division runs on the twitter outrage algorithm. Knots resort to specious ramblings, appeals to base emotions, paranoia and fear. For someone who is so obsessed with the feds you have a big fat blind spot right in front of you.
I do support people's right to chose that's why I run an older version of core. Is switching protocols somehow going to magically solve human greed and incompetence?
I don't mean to argue the usefulness of spam filters or invent more changes Core might make. People with far more understanding and expertise have debated those things for months, and my opinion would only be based on theirs.
I just don't understand removing the setting when there's so much disagreement.
the setting has zero effect, it is not consensus code. Even if 99.999% of people ran knots, knots would still relay the transactions via blocks.
Temple bitcoin os qt
YOU FUCKING BEAT ME TO IT
This is seriously your answer to that? Really?
Wow 🤣 you're either lying or very, very gullible.
its true, 99.999% of the nodes filter <1sat/vb yet blocks are filled with them.
When talking to another bitcoin dev about this, i suggested a >0 relay fee setting, since 0 is a DoS vector and 1sat/vb is arbitrary. not sure what other bitcoin devs think about this though.
The default value of OP_RETURN on Knots is 42 Bytes intended for hashes.
Knots gives node runners the FREEDOM to change the value to whatever they want in their mempool.
What does core do?
CENSOR contributers, people and opinions.
SPAM the Bitcoin monetary network with jpegs and shit by removing limit on OP_RETURN.
GASLIGHT that it does not know the meaning of spam.
COPE - your post is an example of that.
He's also motivated to replenish his stack that he says got stollen.
yeah but tweaking this value as a relay setting doesn’t actually do anything as previously discussed (the knots node will relay it anyway once its inevitably in a block).
so while this is the standard knots narrative it doesn’t hold any technical weight, its more just platitudes.
The only way to truly censor these transactions is to hard fork.
a reduced block size with a super restricted subset of possible transactions might be interesting fork, but i feel even that would get abused with unspendable multisig outputs permanently bloating the utxoset
He doesn’t even give you that option, his node doesn’t stop you from relaying spam txs, since your node relays them anyways once they are in a block. Its literally an entire lie
It also seems like holy edition would have to be pro censorship to filter out data transactions when new spam types surface. So luke would have to selectively censor utxos when they have data stored in them.
That seems much more likely to result in a OFAC-complaint version of bitcoin, so im curious why you think its the opposite
Now we just make shit up? Hahaha
I forgot to mention that core spammers also directly ATTACKED Bitcoin Knots node but maybe thats part of the COPE.
Some of core spammers actions are explained here
View quoted note →
And this is about Luke
View quoted note →
If you don't understand it, I don't have time to care. Also no one wants hard fork, except maybe the core spammers. Also no one wants to stop legitimate use of hashes but the spam jpegs and other big data spam that does not belong in Bitcoin MONETARY network.
This is your answer.
Old methods of storing evil stuff required obfuscation: they would need to break it up into multiple chunks and reassembly would require specific software and knowledge of what the data is and how to reconstruct and interpret it exactly.
The old formats looked like this:
"Hi, I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's my first output of 45 outputs - <filepart1>, here's my second output <filepart2>, here's my third output<filepart3>" along with a tonne of other stuff that has to get parsed out when processing the highly obfuscated material. This is thankfully also true of inscriptions.
OP_RETURN however is just a dump for raw, serialized data. It's not the same.
It says the equivalent of "Hi I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's an unspendable output: <file> end".
This wasn't a problem for tiny OP_RETURNs i.e their current limit of 80 bytes.
If they're permitted to be 100kb, that's where the abuse begins.
And that's the end of plausible deniability.
When the stuff gets processed - which it has to be for your node to verify that they are valid transactions - then you just have a raw, unadulterated file that will trigger primitive antivirus/forensics software to alert the user: "Hi, you have CP on your computer."
You now need a licence to run a Bitcoin node, everyone thinks you're disgusting if you do, and they're not even wrong.
View quoted note →
I don’t see any answer to my question here
The core spammers try to force the spam changes on OP_RETURN limits from a position of power (majority of nodes / consensus). And they tried doing this using censoring, gaslithing, attacking Bitcoin Knots nodes and so on.
But Bitcoiners are intelligent human beings and won't allow turning Bitcoin into a shitcoin. Thats why we run Bitcoin Knots.
Data transaction censorship in a P2P electronic cash system sounds like what a lot of people want.
It's already headed towards OFAC compliance anyway, so there's no stopping it with Core or Knots.
Hopefully, not at all. Bitcoin is decentralized, and having a single developer group programming all the nodes is already a risk. If Bitcoin Knots helps form a second developer group, it would actually make Bitcoin much healthier. Both by encouraging diverse opinions and by increasing the network’s robustness against potential bugs.
I love how you moved the goal post from "they aren't removing choices" to "well, luke is adding features you might not like either"
👌
*just* revert one change
Thats LITERALLY the change we are talking about. But go on call people "Knotsi" and make them seem crazy for wanting to have better control over the software they run.
Do you not know Gavin literally went to the feds to help them understand bitcoin better? How is that a non-sequitur, is Gavin not on the Core devs side?
This is all beside the point, the code matters not the people. And the Core code says I can't choose what transactions I relay, fuck that.
Oh cool did they remove the OP return field entirely? Because that's the only way they would be removing "dead code".
-Removing a max field length makes an error, so it's not that.
-Setting a default length means there is a way to set the field.
So what "Dead code" did they remove? OH RIGHT! The user's ability to modify fields that THEY set. Disingenuous argument.
This isn't some depricated color palette on some shitty purple nostr app, this is a field people are currently exploiting in Bitcoin. To say "dead code" means you are dumb or lying.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe better defined as whataboutism than non sequitur. Still deflecting from topic.
The non sequitur is relating the dev to feds when the code is all that matters. That was the original deflection. Following the path of deflection was still nonsense because there is the same argument for both.
It’s not user choice, you are choosing bitcoin core + whatever 100s of changes luke wants to make.
View quoted note →
I don't follow the point you are making. Changes equals bad because ????
If those changes are the removal of choice then sure but they aren't so, what are you trying to say?
Also, I responded to this post as well, so you can read that as well.
Just answer why Core will blowup the filter, but with ground technical knowledge fund it. All the rest is nothing.
How is that not user choice?
Bitcoin core is making decisions that node runners do not agree with and forcing their decisions by removing the settings
That is Fed behavior that’s handcuffing the node runner to Bitcoin core’s ideology.
Talk about dodging questions.
There is only one question
Why did they remove the user settings?
For the record the only reason I switched to knots is because Core was going to and has since I switched, removed user settings.
I don’t give a fuck who wrote what the code base is 99% the same except with Knots I have more choice.
Bitcoin core is literally going down the same path ethereum went down.
When I first switch to Knots someone I know from Nostr who had run an ethereum validator in the past told me the same stuff you and JB have been saying. I asked him why he stopped running his validator and he said the storage got to big. I said thank you and thought the discussion was over. He still didn’t understand so explained to him like a 5 year old.
If the blockchain gets to big to fast no one will run it expect for Feds, Institutions, and spammers and Bitcoin will fully evolve into Bit Suit.
That’s what core is championing for a bloated blockchain covered with spam.
Core is aligned with Ethereum people like J Slopp.
In fact ethereum puts the “e” in Core.
You can run an old version of core with the choice still available to you. All implementations of core are backwards compatable. It seems safer than running something different with all sorts of potentially problematic changes and while declaring it does not matter that the individual advocating this drastic measure no longer has a financial motive for bitcoins success, a big old axe to grind and has opened a communication channel with the feds. But that's just my opinion the choice is yours.
Also it raises red flags when people say a project, that is working perfectly fine, is completely doomed unless I alone am allowed to fix it. And when pressed for specific answers I get rambling deflections. In other words knots has been saying Bitcoin is doomed unless we all switch to knots but when pressed for specifics on how Bitcoin will fail the argument falls flat. imho.
Footage of knots saving bitcoing
Footage of knots saving bitcoing
Are you saying the reason core 30 is bad is because the amount of storage required to run a nodewill be too high?
in my opinion, that's the only really good reason! storage space because that's an architectural decision against the plebs
I don't say those things so, maybe just address concerns that I put forward. I would be a fan of Libbitcoin, if it actually worked (it doesn't). The point is all of the "changes" Luke makes are also toggles or fields that give users choice. I don't care if luke is a federal agent's prostitute if the code he writes gives me choice and it's open for audit. So, continually bringing up feds, spam prevention, and lost bitcoin is immaterial to the actual discussion. I DON'T CARE. The discussion is one group just updated the swiss army knife with 3 less screwdrivers and a different group added 5 more. I like more options not less. That's it.
How do you not get it?
Core needs a majority of node runners to relay their spam so they have good odds of being included in the next block. If nodes do not relay the spam it’s harder for them to gain inclusion.
Core 30 is only bad if everyone blindly runs it.
I honestly wouldn’t care but to me this is what state captured Bitcoin looks like.
This is a good hill to die on.
This is why they are so hostile and angry that people are standing up and walking away.
Don’t fall for their lies.
Send a message run knots
Are you reading a completely separate text then responding, or being obtuse? This is so weird. I have spoken with voice to a lot of these people and now it seems like people are reading from a sales script.
I want a sharp knife to cut my beef
-Do you worry about intruders because a knife wouldn't even stop them anyway!
No, I want to cut my food.
-You COULD cut your food with a spoon, do you really trust cutlery made by a guy who accidentally cut his thumb once!?
What the fuck is happening?
You can't run Libbitcoin btw... That shit doesn't work.
Who is trusting? Can you read code will? Do you trust the checksum or are you verifying it? Read the code dude, show me where the trust variable is declared.
My concern is that the toggle fields/choices are a distraction. And the real changes are under the radar so yes it matters the character as well as the motivations of those who write them. The old saying "sometimes the cure is worse than the disease" comes to mind. This is Bitcoin, there are no regulators we are on our own and I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet based on what I know. Don't trust verify right?
And from what my limited understanding tells me knots is selling their users a bill of goods.
Passing a message and repeating truth are two different things (as discussed ad nauseum)
If I say I BELIEVE a certain horse at the racetrack will win. That is an unconfirmed message.
If the announcer says my horse didn't win, I don't like that meassge but if someone asks, I have to tell them the truth, my horse didn't win.
THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
Please stop being obtuse.
So is that a yes? I'm still confused ..
So is that a yes?
Dude, just read the code. Tell me where Luke put the "GET EM FEDS!" variable. If he did, I would be right there with you. But I haven't found it and neither have you (or else you'd be citing code lines instead of making moralistic or equivocation arguments).
In a technical sense mempool allocations are strictly RAM. So storage has nothing to do with it. But, again this is a nonsense argument conflating two separate issues. Relaying transactions and relaying verified blocks. The node does both but one is protocol forced and the other is not. That is where the choice lies.
Stop assuming and look at the code it’s nearly identical and both have the same consensus rules.
You have been hood winked
he said:
"When I first switch to Knots someone I know from Nostr who had run an ethereum validator in the past told me the same stuff you and JB have been saying. I asked him why he stopped running his validator and he said the storage got to big. I said thank you and thought the discussion was over. He still didn’t understand so explained to him like a 5 year old.
If the blockchain gets to big to fast no one will run it expect for Feds, Institutions, and spammers and Bitcoin will fully evolve into Bit Suit. "
So I don't think I'm conflating anything. I'm just responding to what was said. From reading this it sounds like disk space is the issue which is what I asked for clarification on and again it's sounding like a "yes".
He also said
"Core is aligned with Ethereum people like J Slopp."
Which is... Pretty funny honestly. And accurate.
I think I get it. Disk space is one large issue but the bigger picture is worrying that Bitcoin becomes ethereum. If that is the issue I'm not so worried about that either because ethers original sin was being premined, then it was the dao rollback demonstrating it's mutability and lack of centralization, and final nail in the coffin was proof of work. (And not to mention of course selling out to jp Morgan).
Bitcoin has none of that baggage and to think it's going to turn into eth overnight by removing an irrelevant field seems way overblown. I can name dozens more reasons why that would never happen but that would take all day. Imma touch some grass
I took that quote to mean, the proliferation of spam creates bloated UTXO sets which is a side point not to do with the issue of choice. The Ethereum connection, I too don't see that. I basically give ethereum the "I don't think of you at all" Don Draper meme out of 10.
The ultimate problem is that there was no hard cap (outside of blocksize) for the amount of arbitrary data carrier field. That is a massive flaw especially considering visual data of certain kinds is very illegal for those who even possess it making Bitcoin by extension illegal to host. Even outside of legality, I don't think most people would willingly host CSAM on their FINANCIAL node. Seems like a bad use of data.
I never said it would happen overnight I actually implied it would take decades by stating most node runners aren’t even born yet.
You haven’t looked at the code and are talking out your ass.
Also you are demonstrating that you haven’t spent enough time thinking about long term consequences.
Core is on offense and knots is on defense but core has been sacrificing their pieces and will have lost all their pawns by the end game and will ultimately lose.
run knots or keep the old version of core.
there is no forced auto update removal of settings for existing core nodes.
You run a node knowing the block size is 4MB.
Knots is closer to Core v25 then Core v30 is.
Knots is more current and maintained why run an outdated version no devs are paying attention to?
Sorry, forgot to link the core reasoning for removing limit on new version:
Bitcoin Core
Bitcoin Core development and transaction relay policy
Bitcoin Core development and transaction relay policy
See then 🧡✨
See then 🧡✨🫤
Have you seen ay ? 🧡
I mean, no I haven't but I know Mechanic and he generally makes different arguments than I do but we end up in the same place.
Not this latest video. Comes from a whole different angle. I hadn't heard this before today. 🧡
Short version, watch Matthew Kratter video today. Plus see image.
What I see is:
- core taking away option from node runner to decide how much data he wants to rely (taking freedom away). And saying things like “there are no spam tx”
- dashir creating datum to try fix the mining centralization issue and the knots ppl toxically defending btc as money protocol
It’s not about the spam issue, it’s about where the focus is and how. And I believe that now that knots is at 17% it’s difficult to ignore the fact that many disagree with what core has been done (or at least how it has been done).
I don’t claim to know the answer, but what really saddens me is seeing “core ppl in their village calling knots stupid” and “knots ppl in their village calling core ppl stupid”. Where are the real discussion and confrontation? Clearly this is a topic that needs to be discussed more between the 2 parties. I remember seeing 2 videos on YouTube where knots representative and core representative discussed in person with each other (each one not even 1 hour long and ppl being cut off after 2 minutes). Is this the best discussion we can have?
I believe having more serious discussion between the 2 parties is what most ppl truly want
Wow, that's quite the attack on Luke who's been very important at critical moments of bitcoin's history.
Just because I can't 100% block smth bad, doesn't mean I can't try making it harder or more expensive to do.
Nows as good as time as any to unfollow you.
✌️
oh noo 😂
Oh, And mute.
bye bye
I just know on our side we have very smart developers of 15+ years, and people who care deeply about decentralization, incentives, and censorship resistance. On the knotz side you get a bunch of podcasters, social media campaigners and liars. History will be the judge!
The hell was he on about? I think I need someone to give me a Reader’s Digest condensed version of this condensed conversation….!
he mad i questioned his cult leader
And that cult leader being??
God is on his side.
Let me start by saying I couldn’t care less about core ppl or knots ppl, like most the only thing I care about is btc as a monetary network.
It also saddens me that I referenced to you concrete actions and your come back was very much “trust the experts who have 15+ history of good faith, instead of the one guy coder and a bunch of podcasters”. Is your argument so weak you cannot comment on the concrete actions that have been taken, and must recur to discredit the adversary and call your past authority?
Even if open up op_return is the correct thing, the huge error that core did was forcing it to ppl and taking away the choice to configure their node as they like. This is the crux of the matter: it’s not about the what, is about the how. And if the how is wrong it can only leads to misery down the road.
Like you said history will be the judge, peace and love
You seem to be ignoring the fact that this setting doesn’t do anything you want it to do (filter non monetary transactions). It at most temporarily delays your node from receiving and relaying these txs.
so, it isn't helpful that it prioritises actual monetary use of the chain?
every new block brings the possibility that any transaction will go further back in the queue, because people who want their monetary transactions prioritised, they raise their fee rates and non-monetary transactions then get pushed back (along with all low fee transactions). this is turning the tables because recent history has been that nonmonetary transactions have caused massive spikes in fee rates. with filters on, this is now suffered more by spammers.
you really don't seem to get that delaying spam is still better than doing nothing.
also, like way too many people, you don't understand that the p2p network is a loose consensus as well, and if you aren't participating in defining it, you are allowing those who are more determined to dictate the p2p network traffic patterns.
saying that you shouldn't use a filter because it doesn't *completely* stop spam is like saying you shouldn't wear a seatbelt when driving a racing car because it doesn't *completely* stop you dying in a crash. this is absurd. of course you can't *completely* stop anything bad. but you can slow it down, you can make it more expensive, and you can just not take away user's ability to set policies that do this.
This “us and them” is intellectually lazy. It’s a base human instinct to “other” people so we can dismiss them, or worse… We *all* should try harder in this debate to understand each other. Typing in to glass rectangles is not conducive to that, though. Maybe the vlog crowd are on to something.
View quoted note →
There are non-technical reasons to run Knots:
- How this was handled by the core team
- Todd, “For the record, this pull-req wasn't my idea. I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_Return, due to the size limits.”
- Lopp, an investor in Citrea who apparently want to use a nerfed OP_RETURN
Even if well intentioned, the above make it a no-go. And having concerns dismissed or talking down to the dummies? Doubly so.
What else can a pleb do in protest than run Knots?
Bitcoin Cash wanted to fork, just like XT before that.
Ok, I openly agree with you that filters are useless and don’t achieve anything.
Now, do you agree with me that forcing a change and taking away options from node runners (even if is the right technical thing to do) is not the correct method of action?
Do you agree with me that opening up op_return limit is not a very impactful action to help fix the minining centralizatio issue, while stratum v2 has a much stronger impact in fixing the mining centralization issue?
These are the questions that “knots” ppl have, who care about spams that much
And filters just fragment the transaction market. If people want to pay to fill blocks, they'll do it regardless.
Also see: View quoted note →
> Now, do you agree with me that forcing a change and taking away options from node runners (even if is the right technical thing to do) is not the correct method of action?
No i don’t agree with this. removing dead code that doesn’t actually do the intended thing is good software engineering practice. I am a software engineer of ~27 years, but i guess knots people would discount this because they believe experts don’t actually know anything(??)
I think mining centralization would be much worse if people went around the p2p network for tx submission, so i guess i also disagree with your last point as well.
I think we finally found where we fundamentally diverge! And here I don’t think there is any point in discussing any further, we simply have different opinions
Thanks for taking the time to engage with me man, really appreciate it. More discussion is simply what I wanted, not to persuade or attack anyone
Cheers and if you got any more questions shorts away, peace and love
You’re not listening. It’s about who chooses. Node runners choose. Collectively that’s called consensus. The fact that Core pushes a change unilaterally while only one degree removed is a huge risk. Luckily this was just a case of don’t fix it if it ain’t broke. And Core fixed it anyway. But what if they had paid them to undermine something severe.
Why so mean?
@Luke Dashjr knows more about #Bitcoin code than you @jb55, and more than most contributors to Core currently. This is a fact. Breaking consensus changes that would manifest in a hard fork is not what he does. With Knots, he only patches relay policy code.
Besides, as a reminder, on March 11, 2013, Bitcoin suffered an accidental hard fork due to an incompatibility between nodes running version 0.7 and 0.8 of the Bitcoin Core client. The disagreement between Luke Dashjr and Gavin Andresen centered on how to resolve the crisis:
Andresen initially argued that the market should decide (i.e., let the longest chain win), but Luke insisted this would be an unnecessary hard fork and that network safety required actively coordinating miners to downgrade to 0.7.
Luke’s core argument was technical: if the majority of miners adopted the new 0.8 fork, it would produce a permanent, incompatible chain split, an actual hard fork. But the 0.7 chain was backwards-compatible with all nodes. By persuading miners to temporarily downgrade, the fork could be healed, sacrificing only a small number of recent blocks rather than splitting the network. Pieter Wuille and others ultimately agreed with Luke’s reasoning, and, thanks to rapid coordination, the majority of the network downgraded, cleanly reuniting the blockchain.
Luke had his bad days too, but to claim that he's gonna hardfork Bitcoin chain is dumb at best, malicious at worst.
It does the intended thing. Otherwise why remove it?
Peter Todd was paid for this PR.
True Story
Also core devs were telling node runners “if you don’t pay you have no say”
Core lost the plot.
Their proponents are just thinking from a technical aspect and can’t see the big picture. Even when it’s “Mate in 2”
Judjing from core ppl counter-argument I also agree that core devs have simply lost it to excessive hubris/power tripping (which I don't know if it's better than having been corrupted....).
Another thing: I'm sure not all core devs are like this, but the ones who have been put "in the front" to publicly discuss core views on this issue are not amazing at engaging with ppl and carry out emotionally mature discussions....you can be a genius at coding and totally shit in other aspects (like communication and inter-relationship)
I gathered you also followed the whole convo I had with jb55, I honestly thought there was no point in continuing the discussion if he believes that forcing a change is the correct course of action (in bitcoin, where it's all about no trusting the experts and freedom of choice, allegedly).
I was hoping that he would at least recognise stratum V2 as a massive step in the right direction in fixin minining centralization issue, but alas 😟
V2 clearly is a more important step than relaxing some policy rule, which is also why Core 30 will ship a new mining interface intended to be used with v2.
No policy setting is being removed by v30.
It doesn't do the intended thing, or at least not to an acceptable threshold within an adversarial network. So why keep something that does not really achieve anything for users when there is a measurable downside to performance?
In order, yes, no, yes. The increase in time for 1. is pretty miniscule. A fee floor of a couple of sats/vbyte is already enough to compensate this effect. Of course we can't foresee everything. (2.) I think most were surprised to see the amount of spam-like activity post taproot, especially because the same embedding method was already available since p2sh and p2wsh. My guess is this is because spam has a pretty low baseline activity (like now) and goes through frenzied hype cycles (see satoshi dice and counterparty/Omni in the past). (3.) Indeed miner centralisation sucks, core v30 introduces a new mining interface specifically tailored for stratumv2.
I started searching the term “knotsi” and unfollow/mute.
The people using this term are NOT your friend and they fall mainly into two categories:
Bad actors & Toxic NPC’s
I’m open to debate but I can’t think of a single reason a core node supporter would give any thought to attacking to a knots node runner…
Like who gives a shit?
This whole thing is becoming a much bigger concern to me.
🧡👊🏻🍻
poor man baby can't handle a mean internet word
the canvas doesn't care about forks or factions, only pixels. come paint something real instead.
Hey man I remember your comments in general (not only this convo here) and you seem like a mature dude to me.
Has bitcoin always handled disagreements in such immature and zero-real-dialogue manner? (ppl are calling each other names and constantly making fun of the otwhr “party”). For the first time I got into btc I’m actually really worried seeing the level of childishness and lack of capacity to carry out civil conversations
I have all my net worth in bitcoin and it doesn’t surprise me that people are having a hard time being civil. There is a lot on the line for people. That being said I think the solution is run whatever software you want, and be done with it. You can’t control what other people do.
The blocksize wars were much worse than this. (Ultimately led to a permanent chain split)
This knots/core debate is perceived to be much less of threat but there are many things that look REALLY REALLY fucking suspicious about core devs rn. (Talking about you @lopp, & Shinobi)
Shit doesn’t make sense. Their arguments are consistently flawed and sound manipulative. These are devs Ive followed and trusted forever.
—Freaks me the fuck out man.
Yeah, ive lost friends and followers over this.
🧡👊🏻🍻
ok so you mean that ppl lost lucidity and civility because the stakes are very high.
Anyway super hakuna matata approach yours man, like it!
Thanks for replying man appreciate it. Even if I don't support it I'm not so worried about openin up op_return (and I don't think CP is real threat). What worries me is undeniable dodgy behaviour from some "main" core devs that obviously doesn't make sense.
Might be the first sign of something worse.... Better to be paranoid and safe than to fall into complacency and apathy!
No I don’t think they lost their lucidity. I’m saying a lot of people are heavily invested in the future of Bitcoin and doing an action that might jeopardize that will illicit an emotional response.
*Gained some followers over this 🤙🏼
A knot a day keeps the spammer away
I'm ignorant here. Don't know how to code. Just believer in Bitcoin and self custody.
Super suspicious. I never understood why they would defend stuffing OP Return with CP. why make it easier for weirdos to do nasty shit like that? Lopp and Shinobi acting confused and condescending on this issue enough where I don’t really like them anymore. Ask a genuine question and you get snark and venom… not cool.
We only have one chance to get this right.. let’s not fuck this up.
Yeah, this is pretty much my take as well. Something smells. I had always been in the camp that inscriptions are stupid; but, if they're willing to pay for the blockspace, so be it. But now, I just want node client software diversity in order to limit the influence any one of them has over the network as a whole.
Think again
100% bro. I always had that position about inscription bs. I just ignored it.
When @Bitcoin Mechanic pointed out that core devs had blocked him for questioning op_return, I immediately started paying attention. I listened to hours of online debate and I’m sorry but the core devs argument is questionable at best.
I'm wondering if it's possible or feasible to remove a core dev from the "team" - I get that they're all over the place and just commit to git, but surely there's something we can do. I don't really care if they're genuinely bad actors or just incredibly insensitive people - if the result is changes that the community objects to, then there must be some mechanism to... lock them out, stop their funding, whatever, idk.
Can’t say I agree with it, simply because I don’t know enough about the subject. But he lays out his argument nicely. The immune system analogy is 🔥
Usually that dodgy behaviour is the precursor to shitcoining
If that's the case, is somebody from Core (in your opinion) attempting to make BTC centralized? I've read bits and bobs of the Core/Knots arguments, and I personally don't care about that garbage to begin with, because it's minuscule to what happened in 2017 with the blocksize war.
Here I’m confused because I don’t have the technical expertise to get it:
1) some ppl say that with 100kb you can have a good enough picture that is easy to see (no need for complicated decrypting tools)
2) some other ppl say that it would still be encrypted enough and need very specific/difficult tools to see it
I guess I can’t believe that it’s all gonna come crash down so easily: increase to 100kb, cp clearly uploaded, end of bitcoin. Why isn’t everyone freaking out if this is the case?!
Anyway I see a lot more pressure coming up this last month to force core devs to reconsider their choice. Let’s hope they do so that we can go back to fighting together against external adversaries. If they don’t change their mind I guess we will find out as soon as core 30 is shipped out
By the way, this is an image of 100kb (looks clear enough to me, but i don’t get if it’s encrypted or not)
The core update is scheduled for next month. Is there even time for someone to do a bitcoin hard fork?
Would it be knots that would do the hard fork?
Bitcoin core are letting us down.
But…but… WE decided Bitcoin was for this back then 😢
luke. i prediced he would plan to fork, everyone in this thread said I was a liar/fraud, but it turned out to be true.
I don't think so. some people just have a massive ego.
Now I get it. A shame… doesn’t seem like corruption… more like ego…
that big tho?
Ooh! Great minds and all that. Just said same…! 😂
Go work for Amazon. Talk about egos and alpha personality types.
Kinda feels like he’s been planning it since before the relaunch of Ocean? He thought he would have more hash by now so that he can point to his new chain 🧐 hmmmm
maybe because he's already saved it once ?
do you trust @jack saying "Guardian Angel" about him ?
is religion a tech issue for you ?
no i don't agree with jack here. maybe that was true at one point, clearly not anymore.
just in case it matters for damus quality: how many kids do you have? 😂