Knots you don’t need to understand it right now knots needed now

core = do what they tell you knots = fuck around with settings you want

Knots people don't want to relay transactions they consider spam from their nodes. However having filters on their personal nodes can't actually stop it so it's mostly symbolic (they might disagree with this). Core is removing the filters because it creates friction in the network. It gives large miners an advantage as they have the resources to build systems that accept spam transactions directly for higher fees, reducing the competitiveness of smaller miners and contributing to mining centralization. Also people that run filters will be at a disadvantage when calculating fees from their own mempools because they won't know about the spam transactions. Additionally removing filters disincentivizes other novel and potentially harmful ways of embedding data like custom addresses that contain the data in the address string. People feel they are being forced into this change by core and don't want to give up the option to set local mempool policy on their nodes. Core is by far the most dominant implementation and having a small group of devs making these decisions is concerning. Questions have arisen about conflicts of interest that are totally valid, and resulted in bans on the GitHub discussion of those expressing those concerns. Censoring opposition is not a good look and turned many people against the core devs, and also caused the conflict to spill out across other social media. That's about the gist of it. I've been following this as closely as a pleb like me can. I was against core at first, but I've come around to their arguments and think the stability and smooth functioning of the network is more important. Filtering spam at the node level is ineffective and creates unintended consequence that are harmful to the network. Also even though I call it spam, there is potential for useful L2 stuff to be created that furthers bitcoins mission as well.

There are 41 NACKs to the proposal, which was also rejected 2 years ago. In general, maintainers of systems prioritize merging the less controversial changes. Im very glad the community is looking at this. The worst situation would be if no one cared.

Core=bad Knots=good

Why?

Honestly, this should be 99% of people but they’re too afraid to admit it.

They are removing the 80 character limit on OP_RETURN on Core, these are my thoughts: nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp6pmv65w6tfhcp73404xuxcqpg24f8rf2z86f3v824td22c9ymptqyv8wumn8ghj7enfd36x2u3wdehhxarj9emkjmn99uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem9w3skccne9e3k7mf0wccsqgra6vnf7sc33vj356ak75430ungrulrndajawp3g45y6ndzyu6hwch652na

Knots = bitcoin is money

I have zero idea either Evan, I bet it's the egos need massaging so you hear a lot of noise from Core dev then Knots dev and his sidekick

Find those that you believe to have a deep understanding of the base bitcoin protocol, and consider their opinions. Known influencers while often not possessing that deep understanding, can help to find those that do.

Core: “Dear venture capitalists, since you insist on trashing our property with your shitcoins and scams, we’ve graciously set aside an area for you to play your “blockchain” games. No more climbing our fences—just please vandalize this area instead and we’ll maintain it for you.” Knots: “Hey, shitcoiners, get the hell off my lawn! I’m stacking fences higher to make your parasitic lives miserable. We’re here to fix money, not to babysit your shitcons and scams. Good luck getting through. 🖕”

I like this. Concise and in language I understand.

I think all nodes will have messed up fee calculation if they bypass the p2p network and go straight to the large miners

I tried to explain a bit here:

Stacker News

Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here. \ stacker news ~bitcoin

There has been a lot of debate about a recent discussion on the mailing list and a pull request on the Bitcoin Core repository. The main two points...

Knots = we don't like that a few dozen developers discuss in public and then do what they think is best for the software project they're working on—so we ask Luke to decide everything. 🤔

A pull request is evaluated based on arguments for and against. A NACK without any reasoning or rationale is not a constructive contribution to the conversation.