Replies (153)
Honestly, neither is Nostr. I've had discussions here about this topic here with AJ and Matt, neither of which were very productive because short text blocks aren't exactly conducive to honest discussion. Pride and wrath are much easier to express and harder to bypass in this format.
In other words, it's not teh botses.
View quoted note →Antoine explained this well at the bitcoin++ mempool edition. It was prompted by a shitcoin company about to launch something that would have harmed the network since they didn’t consult with any core devs. There should be a video up somewhere where he explains this.
Core dev has never been driven by community, its been driven by contributions commenting on PRs
Contributors *
I don't understand why Citrea cannot do something like Alpen Labs is doing with Strata, where they're able to keep all required "arbitrary" data under 80 bytes.
Would we not have to have this debate were it not for Citrea's technical choices?
i don’t see why knots nodes would affect me at all, i just want people to regain reason and not fall for social media campaigns based on lies
This sounds a lot like "trust me bro"
It might have not come up now, but it seemed inevitable. It’s such a stupid timeline and we really should be talking about covenants instead. Much more interesting debate with actually useful outcomes.
You are neither technical nor smart. The core spammers propaganda has wiped you completely and you are constantly repeating nonsense.
yes, i trust core devs to not fuck up the money. I don’t trust the religious zealot luke and his gang of goons to do the same
ok bot
and who are you other than a nym provocateur talking shit?
That's because I don't have any major disagreements with core supporters on a technical level. You can be completely correct about technical details, but if they change the software into something I'm not interested in running then I'll look for another option. This applies to any software not just Bitcoin Core. People run software first and foremost because of what it does, not because it has (in the dev's opinion) reached some pinnacle of technical perfection.
🤡🤡
This guy keeps conflating “Bitcoin” and “Bitcoin core” 🫣
View quoted note →Probably a former core user, now a knots user.
Here is the simple technical truth for you in the video.
BitcoinIsFuture
BSV shitcoin made the same change that core 30 intend to do (allowing 100KB in OP_RETURN) and got flooded with CSAM on their chain. This change is an ATTACK on Bitcoin.
View quoted note →
maybe because you get your world view from social media instead of reality
It is already rammed down your throats because its consensus
the more knots people ignore this reality, the more we will see alternative relay networks independent from core and knots (which we’re already starting to see). Nothing will stop this from an economically motivated actor unless we hardfork bitcoin and try to lock down these use cases.
Yes it is, thats policy not consensus
I agree that all this time and effort would be much better devoted to covenants.
Still, this debate has been going on for a while and for whatever reason there seems to be no clarity whatsoever from both sides.
I still have to hear what Knots proponents think of arbitrary data that cannot be marked as unspendable outputs
Right, so changing it on a knots node won’t do anything
have you tried contributing to the project instead of complaining in social media? Of course not, you are more likely a bad actor than someone who actually cares about bitcoin, something i have dedicated my life to for the past 15 years. Fuck off bot.
because i am here to defend bitcoin core when noone else will. Because i care about the truth and to fight against the lies against us.
We already have unlimited op_return, in core and knots.
I don’t see relay policy as effective given new relay networks that will inevitably spring up to get around censorship of economically motivated transactions. Not even talking about core. Core just aligns with this reality.
Core doesn’t remove this option
We’ve seen this before.
Its deprecated for a good reason though: the option doesn’t have any effect on your node from receiving that data, it just makes your node run less efficiently. Your node will get this data regardless. What you’re saying is you want an option for virtue signalling rather than for any real reason
Wow good for you, so am i and so is everyone else. You want a badge or something
I may be a rare bitcoin user/dev but i have always been very anti filters since the very beginning , so i may have a different perspective than most core devs who are pro filters (standardness), let alone knots people who are even more pro filters (standardness+++)
Defender of core, what is the benefit for Bitcoin or people running the software with core 30?
A mempool that better reflects what miners are actually mining? Better fee estimation? More efficient bandwidth usage? Latest bitcoin core features like bitcoin-node and multiprocess (although not sure how much of that is landing in v30). I haven’t looked at the full changelog yet
I think its a good way for idiot to burn and donate their bitcoin to miners
If core makes it harder then people will build around it. Core is just accepting economic reality while knots want: to try to censor and control something they really have no control over. Its communism.
Not worth it for me compared to hosting and distributing cp and shady vc smart contract projects on my harware, and the attack vectors that come with it for Bitcoin overall, imo. But sure, you do you.
You will do this regardless on a knots node, just the same as a core node
it doesn’t make it easier, it just changes core to reflect reality. People making these kinds of custom transactions are not relaying via core. I don’t see why doing it with bitcoin-cli is any easier than a web form submission.
Most people building protocols that depend on this would not be using core relay anyways, they would just go around it
i am happily isolated from that. i only see dumb takes when i see the context of replies from npubs i follow. other than that its just meta posts like these.
I think knots is goofy, i don’t see it as a threat unless they somehow convince everyone to hardfork, but i would hope people would be smarter than that.
I’ve always said the biggest threat to bitcoin is a cultural one: if we don’t pass down our values to future generations, they might not understand what the problem was or how bitcoin fixed it. So it could be taken for granted and ruined without anyone to stand up in its defense.
Emdash, you literally just made an ai response? Come on bruh
Op_return limit from 80bytes to 100kb doesn't make it easier? Why do it at all?
Thoughts on the network allowing storage of data on it and that data cap continuing to grow? Do you think this would be for any cause for concern? Genuinely curious 🤌
It already allows that, cats out of the bag, best we can do is price it out with smaller blocks or higher bitcoin usage
You said removing OP_return limit will stop people from using SegWit or MultiSig, but it won’t. That option is still available.
All you do is make every block bigger with NFT and junk. It is good for miners, they make the fees, but what does it do for node runners? They get nothing out of this.
If it will be more expensive or even illegal to store some of this junk. Why would anyone do it?
This will lead to fewer and fewer nodes.
You have to know this could happen. If you don’t then there is nothing anyone else can say. We just have to wait and see how many people actually upgrade to 30. Bruh.
I'm deleting damus and never recommending. Bitcoin is my money, and I have valid opinions even if I don't code. Plus, you - the coder - obviously don't understand bitcoin at all. This is THE DUMBEST and most arrogant post I've ever seen on nostr. Impressive.
I really dont care, cya
Which is why you lose in life. Cya
Says the nobody who has nothing of value to add to this conversation.
Says the worthwhile person contributing actual value to the conversation
Projects the actual value leech adding nothing to this conversation
Others have tried to explain it to you. You're slow, so I'll try it again.
Core is making the changes, not knots. The changes they are making will allow contiguous images of CSAM or other crap on the network. This is not theoretical, it already happened to BSV. By storing and transmitting those images, you become the felon.
I don't need to code to understand this. Why can't you?
How are you gauging their (our?) actual size?
Seems like about 50% of the updated nodes are Knots. About 19% of all nodes.
Given that the discussion has almost entirely happened on twitter that shows an insane pushback against blowing up datacarriersize.
You're not filtering jack unless you implement and enforce stricter consensus rules. Your Knots node will store and serve data you detest once it gets confirmed in a block.
Argument works in reverse. Spam just spent a couple years pricing out actual usage which is now utterly dead.
Didn’t it die down after they burned so much capital on fees ? I don’t think it’s economically viable long term
Awwww csam on a public immutable ledger easy arrest, less pdf out in world and this is bad how?
So, you are saying Bitcoin is captured and states can go after node runners for hosting and distributing cp they never wanted because we have no tools to filter this stuff out, no matter which distribution we run? Hey hey congrats on that.
Neither is using csam as your main argument like the losers in this thread 🤣 same as the liberal saying trans with self delete if you dont let them transition weak empathy argument
Knots leaves it where it is...
Casinos will all disappear once everyone runs out of money?
Well its not like the fees are getting reinvested into the casino, i think there is a lot of attrition in this case?
Idk who you think you're replying to but I'm not them
For sure. But principle remains, there is always another sucker and we are not on a Bitcoin standard.
My mempool is my responsibility. Confirmed transactions are the miner's responsability. I can't be held responsible for other people's actions, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't act morally.
Also, confirmed and unconfirmed transactions are completely different.
X is just, the worst place
You didn't answer the question. Answer
@Zach⚡️ question!
Maybe algo pushes it to you cause it’s rage baiting 🤔
well ya thats exactly why. It optimizes for rage bait not truth
"Interesting perspective! It’s true that we all have our roles in this ecosystem. Balancing responsibility and morality can be tricky, but it’s great to see thoughtful discussions around it. Every transaction tells a story! 💭✨ #BlockchainEthics"
You're speaking circular jibberish. Consensus means majority agreement. You say it is consensus but you whine bc the majority disagrees with you. Then you say the consensus (majority rule) is rammed down the majority's throat. Then you say you defend Core bc no one else will but Core is majority consensus. Then you say you're pro filter. You are the best case for Knots I've seen in a while.
I think it temporarily makes onchain txs harder, but that is why we need more people using lightning channels because in a healthy fee market this is inevitable anyways
Hey, there is a tidal wave of old core node runners. Knots will explode higher once v30 is released
X is just that a discussion forum.
Consensus means something very specific in bitcoin: the rules in which *all* nodes agree, even between knots and core and other implementations.
What happens to perpetrators is irrelevant to the node operator, as once said content passed through consensus rules it has to be stored and shared, unless the node opts out of the network altogether, or in some way avoids part of the chain by running pruned. As far as I know, there is no pruned way to avoid csam with a pruned node as it is more about which blocks when, not content. And neither should someone who wants to run a full archive node have to comply with such things. I’m not a fed, and we’re not talking AML. It’s a fundamental difference between free speech and expectations to host and share things that are counter-productive to our species and to knowingly do so.
I apologize for the insults. I ask you to reconsider your stance that only coders have valid opinions on bitcoin code. You don't have to be a doctor to have valid opinions on your body and health (which medicines and vaccines you receive or reject). You don't have to be an elected politician to have valid opinions on government. And you don't have to write code to have valid opinions on the monetary policies of bitcoin.
@Luke Dashjr was one of the first people to take the correct side in the block size wars
If you wish to make such assertions, I suggest you get an actual practicing attorney to publish an opinion to that effect. Good luck!
Feel free to employ whatever pretzel logic helps you cope better 🤷🏼♂️
Is it though? Total number went up 19%. It wasn't 19% of nodes that switched. Node count is cheap to trivially Sybil attacked.
No? Even though his concepts are a foundational part of bitcoin without which Bitcoin could not exist at all? Also mentioned in the whitepaper?
I know you feel attacked but the appeal to authority argument is jetfuel on this fire.
I also don't want this data on my node. I want moral money and not be the distributed s3 for whatever sick stuff people put there.
That does not answer the question at all. Does unlimited op_return hurt the monetary network?
no adam does not contribute to core, at least i have never come across any of his code during all the many years reviewing core code
I don’t know, is it hurting today? Because we have that today
then don’t run knots because it relays sick stuff too. Better not run bitcoin at all, since state actors will always be able to put bad stuff in witness data/multisig pubkey outputs and even knots nodes wouldn’t be able to filter it either
I understand the point you're trying to make. I think you're missing my point though. Proof of work. He is a cryptographer, a true cypherpunk OG, but his opinions dont have weight because he doesn't work on core? Satoshi credited him in the white paper after all.
If we're going to use appeal to authority as an argument, then he's in pretty good shape, in my opinion.
Also, I think
@npub1qg8j...24kw's recent input on this discussion has shown an enormous amount of nuance which seems to be missing from the two sides doing most of the yelling.
Either side could pick things he said out of context and claim that he's on their side. In fact, they're doing that.
But my greater point is using an appeal to authority argument is flawed in the beginning. It's a bad argument, first of all, but it also alienates everyone who feels like they don't have a voice.
And it continues to propagate the point that this off-used meme is making.
And when people came to contribute by commenting on this BIP and PR who are not recognized members of core, they were censored and shut down. How can they contribute? If you keep them at arm's length, you don't really deserve to point at them at the same time and say that they don't have a voice because they don't use it.
This is about the point where the next commonly used oversimplified argument from the core side comes in that the plebs are too stupid to understand why this is a good idea.
Then there's, they're not real people, they're bots.
I'm not even arguing with your position if you notice. I'm basically pointing out why the point at which this argument is being made is doing more damage than good.
I currently run knots on a node in Texas and core on a node in Finland.
Idgaf, protocol still works.
Spams for fags.
Filters for fags.
Ok.
I didn't make that argument. And that's not the main argument against Core, nor the main argument for Knots. That's a weak straw man. Do better.
Interesting, I rarely see Knotsies rhetoric. Only good memes poking fun at the Virtue Signals.
Maybe because the Grass Fed Shitcoin, paid Agitator Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton of Bitcoin blocked me😁
If the technical/rational ones are being paid then should they still be considered the only valid ones?
I’m not saying core is bought and paid for. But unless we know 100% that they are not then why would we think they’re the only ones with valid opinions?
do you have any idea of the people who work on bitcoin? I have met lots of them in person and have talked to them at length. I suggest get to know them before you slander them and me.
No slander intended, just making a point. Same as how “trusting the science” may be questionable due to incentives. So it’s worth asking questions, imo.
Ultimately, I’m just not hearing about the benefits that come from the size limit. Why isn’t that being discussed? Can you speak to the benefits? Instead of benefits all I’m hearing is: It’s worthless to resist or trust the professionals. I just want to know the benefits since I’m usually on the side of progress.
*size limit increase
Weird argument for someone who just lost half the market share of a project within a few months. Nobody gonna pay you or give you gold stars for contributing to something no one wants.
You don’t see why Knots affects you? That blindness is the problem. Knots exists because Bitcoin Core has grown complacent, insulated, and too comfortable dictating the “one true path.” Knots is a check on that power — a living reminder that consensus doesn’t come from a handful of maintainers or their curated narrative, but from the network of individuals who refuse to bow to central dogma.
You call it “social media campaigns based on lies.” We call it people waking up. Waking up to censorship. Waking up to the quiet slide into gatekeeping. Waking up to the fact that the cathedral you’re building on top of Bitcoin is not Bitcoin itself.
Knots doesn’t need your permission, your blessing, or your approval. It runs because people run it. It matters because it refuses to kneel. If you’re so sure it “doesn’t affect you,” then why the defensiveness? Why the dismissive tone? Because deep down you know: every Knots node is a rejection of monopoly, a refusal to swallow the narrative spoon-fed by Core.
We’re not here to ask nicely. We’re here to remind you that Bitcoin is not yours to guard, curate, or brand. It belongs to all of us — and Knots is proof that your grip is slipping.
hmm, complaining about a centralized platform on a decentralized one. lol, also your not going to find much love for Core round these parts. people round here have consensus that the dev's you mentioned are making a mistake.
Genuine question from someone who doesn't understand WTF is going on and what side to take. If I don't want to save JPEGs on my node, is Knots the best choice for that (currently) or would not running any node be the only way moving forward?
Charlie's concern seems valid to me or is this not a concern?
@jb55
Bitcoin may not care but I do and I assume other node runners likely will.
knots does not prevent jpegs from getting saved on your node, knots can't do that because it's the same consensus code as bitcoin core
Well I bet it pushes pro core posts to mechanic and here we are full circle 😂
Wow ok that changes things 😅 I'm running knots anyway purely randomly as I thought I'd try that when setting up the Umbrel (before all this) I assumed id be unaffected.
fixed it: "I completely agree. The technical and rational people are NOT the valid ones. It’s a meritocratic system. Money should not be ruled by the emotional whims of people who don’t understand the system they are trying to change. If we allow that then bitcoin is doomed.
If you want to make a change, then become a KNOTS contributor, learn how bitcoin works, run a node. Forking off into some alternate with an the *only* sensible maintainer is a way but not ideal."
the thing is. bitcoin is not about trust.
bitcoin is open source and everyone can reason and discuss the rules by themselves.
do you trust satoshi?
...nobody knows who satoshi is or was, so the only way to judge is by looking at what bitcoin is and how it works and one can derive from there.
no need to trust.
bitcoin is exactly about ending the requirement for that kind of trust. its a protocol.
a system that requires trust is fiat or any system with autorities to decide on behalf of you, while you can only suck it up.
bitcoin fixes this.
the only ones who doesnt provide any ratiinal for why core30 is supposed to be good is you.
esentially, you disqualify yourself. you say you trust core, thus you dont have a facts or arguments based opinion yourself.
you currently choose that, thus nobody shluld discuss the pros/cons of core30 with you, because your opinion is just: i believe in core - they probably thought about it.
yeah - let me know if you change your mind by providing an actual issue based opinion that can be discussed. believe cant be discussed
I hope the irony isn’t lost on jb55 with this one.
It’s completely different because Core (the reference implementation) initiated this and so likening the push back from people against spam to the big blockers, who were trying to push something new (larger blocks) doesn’t make sense.
yep, so let’s hope Knots don’t fork…👀
There’s nothing to fork. This isn’t a fight over consensus rules. It’s just an argument about mempool acceptance policy with no effect on the final outcome.
I know that.
So, no crying in the mempool if no fork is proposed.
Yup, just more deception and gaslighting.
Covid and vaccine mandates but with code. “Trust the experts”
“You think you don’t want your node to relay and store spam, but you actually do. Trust me bro”
I doubt that's what's happening. Maybe I'm deluding myself but seems organic to me.
I wonder how long before majority realizes this fact.
Classic clip
.
My reading of the chart is that knots is up 4k since the drama/campaign started while core is down 1.5k. That would be 1.5k nodes that switched to knots and 2.5k nodes that got added using knots.
Now if you want to make it look more organic, maybe ask Chainalysis to switch 10k of their nodes to knots? Or in preparation for the next drama, get some 10k IP addresses to point to your core node? 🤔
he cant answer, because he already shared in other notes that he trusts and beliefs into bitcoin core devs, which is why he defends them without an actual understanding of what core30 does and how it achieves it. 🤷♀️
Check the discrepancy between IPV4 and Tor nodes 😏
Interesting how you seem to think that technical process is all that matters and yet you resort to an argument to trust.
Ok.
Have a chart for only ipv4?
IIRC bitnodes has network based breakdowns
I don't see knots on
https://bitnodes.io/dashboard/1y/
Nodes on .onion vs. IP:
.onion grew 26% while IP grew 13%.
Sorry, but it really makes sense to compare both:
It's again another power grab trying to build support using same kind of arguments (FUD) against Core.
So what?
Made a good decision, all his decisions are good?
🤔
Consensus DOES allow unlimited OP_Return in a block.
anyone who has ever interacted with luke would not trust 100% of his decisions
To make p2p relay network work better and thus keep tx relay decentralised.
No, my post was a direct reaction to the post I was responding to. The meme is bullshit. That's what I'm trying to say. Not "all of Luke's decisions are good." Luke gets too much worship and deference from some knots users, imho. (Core also gets too much worship and deference, and I'm glad that's changing.)
Ok. It seems I misunderstood you.
Sorry about that.
🫂
Yeah IIRC you have to cross corrolate it with the node version chart. Or you can do a search for knots and count manually by seeing how many pages in the list are Tor nodes.
And when I say FUD, I'm referring to things like:
Luke Dashjr
This post is about the next decade or two, not the next 24 hours.
Core and Bitcoin cannot both continue to exist.
View quoted note →
Propaganda and fear at its best.
The large and important difference between these 2 situations is that on one occasion you have a side trying to push a major change (big blockers who lost on the social consensus front) and on the other, a major change that has already been pushed regardless of any social consensus. There’s no power grab, it’s just people against this change to op_return pointing out the issues involved with the relaxation of filters. Because core has already pushed this change and it looks as though it will be released in v30, the only way people thinking this change is reckless can voice their opinion is by running knots with customisable mempool policies.
What Luke is saying in that post you linked is that either:
- Core with this change and/or potentially future changes made in a similarly rash fashion could/will destroy bitcoin or at least make running nodes unfavourable for the average Bitcoiner leading to centralisation
- Or the bitcoin community will push back against core, diminishing core’s reputation and credibility to potentially nothing.
Personally I think the latter, as I think there are more bitcoiners who wish for it to remain as a monetary protocol rather than a JPEG database / cloud storage…
Let's see:
- Increasing the OP_Return limit is NOT such a 'major change'. It doesn't affect consensus. It's not even a soft fork.
- People wanting to store something in Bitcoin's blockchain already do it. Nothing is changing that.
- Making the p2p network to relay totally valid consensus transactions actually improves its decentralisation.
- The 'social consensus' you talk about just lives in your head.
- Arguing about 'potential future changes' is just FUD
- Don't like a client? Run whatever client you prefer. It's up to you.
- Luke is indeed positioning himself as bitcoin-saviour and leader. I've seeing this movie with other protagonists and it didn't end well for them.
🫂
*typo: "I've seen" (not 'seeing')
People don't seem to understand that mempool is simply a marketplace for block space, if that marketplace differs from consensus rules then it will simply fragment into multiple marketplaces.
The other thing is, "it's a waste of block space" is the same argument as "bitcoin is a waste of energy".
I kind of miss the XT and Segwit days when we argued about real stuff. Wonder how Mike Hearn is doing.
The state can make up whatever excuse they want to go after node runners, they can even just say there's cp despite being none. That's a very weak attack vector though, there are far greater threats.
Because the alternative is a fragmented transaction market.
How? How does this fix it?
one wanted to change bitcoin, the other didn't want the change.
am i missing something?
It's the inevitable result of mempool rules being different to consensus rules.
Luke and Mechanic want to control bitcoin core software releases , because they don’t like how people use their own bitcoins
It’s completely different because Core (the reference implementation) initiated this and so likening the push back from people against spam to the big blockers, who were trying to push something new (larger blocks) doesn’t make sense.
If LukeCoiners don’t like people using bitcoin,
Then Knots can fork off or use PayPal.
X algo optimises for contention and conflict. It’s what drives engagement. The more you try counter their arguments the more X shows you that content.
#nostrfixesthis
No, we will use bitcoin like it's intended, and keep the commons clean and be stewards of it.
Have a nice day Officer 👮♀️
View quoted note →
