Why? What's supposed to be happening?

Well of course, nothing ever happens.

Is something suppose to happen ?

absotively

That’s the spirit ! 🫡

Who said something was going to happen?

Is anyone saying something would happen?

No, straw man post

Nada

What's not happening tomorrow?

Anti-fragility is a beautiful thing.

Can you Explain?

Knots users are capable of thinking about longer term consequences than the next 24 hours. You should try it sometime.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Nice plan!

👆🏼

Says the corrupted influencer

No one. Failed attempt to mock node runners that don’t want to be file storage providers for non monetary data

Don’t attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity

You would have said that the day before the patriot act passed or gold redemption ended. Swing and a miss

Do you honestly think the Patriot act and the end of gold redemption are equivalent to the release of core v30……?

Please explain how I am corrupted.

I fully support you running knots and hope you have a wonderful day.

Only you can answer that. But the pattern and behavior is there for people to see.

That wasn’t the implication of my comment. The commentary tried to point out your shortsightedness and inability to understand that side effects of bad decisions often take more than 24hrs to manifest.

the adversarial awareness and vision of a gnat, combined with the reckless and thoughtless motions of a bucking bull. Nice life, Walker.

The v30 changes are totally unnecessary and hurt Bitcoin as money, perhaps kill it. Why even take that risk? It’s an attack vector.

Some of these comments man…yeesh

@walker - you owe it to your audience to become better educated about the significant and unnecessary risks that Core v30 poses for Bitcoin and stop trolling the Knots people for fun. Core v30 is indeed a serious risk. This current debate motivated me to do the work of attending Bitcoin Core developer meetups to understand their personalities and perspectives, read the source code to understand the specific differences between Core policy and Knots policy, read the discussion threads of Core developers to see how they reached this decision, read the “Bitcoin Development Philosophy” book Chaincode Labs funded, and learn the history of the conflicts between Luke and current Core developers/maintainers. I don’t align with many of Luke’s opinions, but his approach to filtering out non-financial data is valid. Core’s arguments are hand-wavy at best and their “intentions” are secondary to the consequences. For example, v30 opens the floodgates for a new wave of spam from VC-backed startups that will now have “approved” ways to store the large amounts of arbitrary data they want to store (and VCs don’t like the risk that using hacks to embed data could result in their business model being broken by a future release of Core, they don’t want to fund a layer 2 network for their data, and they don’t like the centralization risks and increased costs of needing to collude with miners to bypass node filters). Indeed, the threat of Citrea spamming the network with large amounts data that can never be pruned and permanently damaging efficiency is one of the things motivating the misguided changes in v30. Knots is “proof by existence” that Core could indeed filter at least some of the non-financial data, but they instead chose to reject Luke’s PR because filtering spam doesn’t align with their philosophy of trying to get the whole network of mempools to more accurately reflect exactly what miners choose to mine - including spam. There is technical nuance to their reasoning for this philosophy that makes sense, but it’s misguided when examined in the broader context of the entire Bitcoin network as a complex system of interdependent components. “Systems Thinking” as Saylor likes to call it. Existing spammers are unlikely to start using OP_RETURN to embed their data because they get a 75% Segwit discount by continuing to embed it via the hacks they currently use. Nick Szabo (unusual background as an OG cryptographer who also attended law school) makes plenty of reasonable points about the legal risks v30 causes for Bitcoin - so I won’t repeat them here. In a nutshell, v30 doesn’t mitigate existing spam, opens the floodgates to new spammers, increases the legal risks and operational costs for node runners, and increases reputational risks for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem. But on the upside, nodes should validate newly mined blocks a fraction of a second faster and estimate fees a little better. Things the vast majority of Bitcoiners don’t care about. If you do the work to go down this rabbit-hole, then you too will be concerned about Core v30, and how it could be placing your future financial security in jeopardy (alongside everyone else who relies heavily on Bitcoin). Every single node operator should run Knots to signal their view that Bitcoin is money and spam is worth fighting. And continue running Knots until the Core dev team joins the fight against non-financial data spam instead of legitimizing it and making spamming even easier.

High-time preference and it shows. No, seriously.

#RunBitcoinKnots #FIxInscriptionsSpam #FixOP_RETURNSpam #FixCompromisedCore

Shut off the filters

Very well said. This whole shit show has forced me to dig deeper and do my homework. I moved to knots for may of the same reasons you outlined after many hours of research that has led me to a much deeper understanding of bitcoin. Even got myself a miner and mining with Ocean. This whole situation makes me sick to my stomach and I hope we make it though this relatively unscathed. As much as I want to see core supporters eat their own words for this crap they pulled, I don't want to see an unnecessary bear market over it

Helpful perspective.

Is it true that small blockers turned #bitcoin into #gold while big blockers were trying to make it a real payment system - like peer to peer cash ?

Dude, walker gets paid by memefluencing from the same venture capital pockets making the core changes. You think he actually gives two shits about your logical and comprehensive reasoning? No. He doesn’t give a shit about having a legitimate discussion, just feeding the kid and making the meme money.

No

OK, that’s a statement that is pretty unfair, especially if you don’t know that for a fact, and I don’t think that’s the case

Didn't big blockers want more tpm .. kinda compete with visa ?

The larger blocks would not have increased throughput 10,000x , which is needed to compete with visa, but it wood have bloated the blockchain. But lightning does.

But the argument of big blockers was definitely to make it "peer to peer" cash ..as Satoshi envisaged .. sure ..they were not good technical solutions .. Lightning is good one .. right ! But if you don't have lightning ..and have small block ..then it leads you to #gold ..isn't it ?. Btw ..the problem with lightning is why do we have discount ! Thanks to lightning the fees is sinking ..even though BTC is all time high !

Wtf

lol okay usually I wouldn’t even respond but this is beyond retarded… who do you think is paying me exactly??

Your blue check engagement farming.

this guy is a troll btw, from what I've seen (from the perspective of my mentions) he spends most of his time attacking and bitching at people who make things, while not contributing anything productive or of value. I wouldn't put much weight into anything he says.

I'll be upgrading that's what happening

Don’t you literally MC at David Bailey’s conference? I guess you do that out of your own generosity and pay for your tickets and hotels for the privilege of being on stage?

No I just call out the grifters who sell a subscription to a service they abandon immediately.

its being used to pay an employee who works on damus *at a loss btw*. you're lying.

Just because you’re a bad entrepreneur doesn’t make me a liar.

yes nostr not being an instant success is all my fault. my bad.

and what successful startups have you created?

Hey everyone, nostr is an instant success because of Will! Suck his dick or else!

actually, not even worth my time. not sure why I have you unmuted. bye.

I’m not going to be running core v30, because I don’t update my node frequently. I’ve said this many times and reminded others they do not need to update. That said, core v30 is simply not a “serious risk” to Bitcoin. Thank you for the suggestion to become better educated; that’s what I have done. That’s why I know v30 is not a serious risk to Bitcoin. There has been an insane amount of fear mongering and this has been turned into what basically amounts to an “identity politics” debate as this point. Whether you run core or knots, you’re still running Bitcoin, because you have the same *consensus* rules. Give my conversation with @DETERMINISTIC OPTIMISM 🌞 a listen if you’d like a nuanced perspective: Give my conversation with @npub128a2...7erh a listen if you want a deeper dive into the technical side: Everything is going to be OK.

you got me… I emceed the biggest Bitcoin conference in the world in 2023 and 2024. And guess what? They didn’t ask us to emcee in 2025… I’ve also emceed at TABCONF, Adopting Bitcoin, Plan B Lugano, BTC Prague, Plan B El Salvador, and the Bitcoin Ski Summit. Regardless, what is your point? You’re trying to claim I’m being paid for my opinions, but it’s simply false. The only people who pay me for my opinions (after the fact) are the people who zap me on Nostr.

We’re on Nostr dude. There are no blue checks.

Correct.

even WORSE then...

Amen, Walker. I have watched and listened for months & months. My plan: just don't upgrade to Core30. Who knows what is right? I usually listen to Adam Back, Nick Szabo, Parker Lewis, and others...

Not according to @walker Nothing's happening!!!

walker

Can’t wait for absolutely nothing to happen tomorrow.

Oof View quoted note →

The narrative that something was going to happen on the day of was always a straw man. You know that, right?

Well, this person seems nice

lol, that’s not education, that’s bias confirmation 😂

I agree. I don’t think he’s taking money from shitcoiners — Walker just lacks any capacity for adversarial thinking. He’s simply dumb.

“Every single node operator should run Knots to signal” No. The default is to not update. Every [existing] node runner (prior to v30) should take this stance until being convinced of upgrading (whether to v30 or knots). Most node runners are technically incompetent. Knots is not a single line of code changes, but thousands of lines of code changed. Node runners who are unable to quantify the merit of these differences should not change to [virtue] “signal”, especially without being able to quantify said changes. Furthermore, it is seeming that you can merely change the data carrier size in v30 still, therefore, wouldn’t the better option be to still run v30 if you see the need to update and merely change that single configuration? The amount of people virtue signaling and cancelling others, over mere policy (not consensus) changes, when we (most of “us”?) want multiple and different clients anyway is absurd.

Data carrier size in v30 doesn't mean the same thing as it did in v29. Core changed it such that restoring the parameter to 83 in the v30 config does not restore to the v29 (default) behavior. There's info about this on nostr and of course the core github.

You talking about being able to send multiple op-return in v.30 (as opposed to only 1 in v.29) ?

Yes that's it. At least that's my understanding. It's not the same feature as it was, anymore.

Geez

>> but fear most are not The current distribution of clients indicates this is the case afaik. >> The main downside of that approach is it’s difficult to know if someone stays on an older version because they disagree with the direction Core v30 is taking or for some other reason. I don’t think the Core devs/maintainers will change their stance without a very clear signal that node operators are unhappy about making spamming easier. Be damned what anyone thinks. I understand your desire to have feedback loops, however, “sending a signal” is insufficient reason for me change policy which is personal to the user. >> like we currently see in Core representing such a large percentage of nodes. We also see a very large user base for knots, so it seems we both are happy at the variety and distribution of competing clients.

>> signals it’s the “Bitcoin is money not arbitrary data storage” version of Core to achieve the social signaling to the network. It’s not about signaling anything (as far as policy goes), it’s about using the best client and policy as you see fit and having optionality. Bitcoin is for enemies, while I hate spam, I share the sentiment and weariness of the slippery slope for filters with the avenue Luke has talked about as depicted by The Rage.

>> More surprising was that Peter Todd mentioned in the thread that he was being paid $1000 to push through the change. Is that how little it costs to undermine the future of Bitcoin as money? My read on that was that Antoine paid him to redo it, as he did the PR initially, so that Peter could get the credit for his PR. If you think this PR undermines the future of Bitcoin as money, we heavily disagree there, for reasons outlaid throughout our dialogue above. If a single policy change could kill Bitcoin, it was not as anti fragile as you thought, and you should reconsider your position in it.

Knots is just how Bitcoin has always worked.

No it’s not, it’s not one simple line of code difference (data carrier size, which is still configurable and to be in V30).

It’s not about making a quick buck, they’re likely very rich. But yes, I think Todd is a retard, one only has to look at his views on inflating the 21M supply cap and Ukraine. That being said, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. He’s done a lot of good too, and his opinion is still relevant because he knows the system very well - whether that’s good or bad.

Exactly, while we may disagree on policy (I too hate JPEGs and spam), we’re in consensus (fuck fiat, 21M, P2P - no censorship).

Interesting, need to learn more but the point still stands, I won’t update until given reason to, then I will choose the best option; which may even be hacking my own patch / porting a new isolated patch to an older version

No, its not. I heard they changed it from 80 to 800 per tx.

Knots is thousands of lines of code different. It’s not how it’s always worked. Yet to verify your claim in V30 & as stated, the default is to not upgrade until being convinced

Core change 1000s of lines every version