The Knots vs Core debate has a strange dividing line: philosophical concerns vs technical ones.
I also like the framing that those who prioritize Bitcoin as money are taking the Knots side, and those who prioritize Bitcoin as technology are taking the Core side.
I know what is more important for me. Bitcoin the technology is only relevant because it solves the problem of money for the world. Bitcoin is money. The technology is just the enabler.
Making Bitcoin worse at being money is a bad thing. The arguments for enabling spam for technical reasons make no sense to me. This makes Bitcoin worse as money. I'm not in favor of that. At all.
Replies (16)
Nailed it 🤝
👏
I agree 100%, but hackers gonna hack. Their job is to break stuff just to point out that a bad guy can do it, effectively making themselves that bad guy out of principal.
This is actually a really good point. And I would put a lot more weight into the "hacky" nature of some devs if the end result was actually fixing the broken things. Core literally changes documentation to say that the broken thing was fine all along. Or actively makes the broken thing easier to do.
I think the problem originated when the term 'core developer' started. The appeal to authority logical fallacy it taught at a very early age to almost everyone, and most fail to unlearn it.
I hate the approach that Core has taken (disregarding "dumb" users) & I think trusting Luke is retarded. The guy can't even maintain exclusive access to his keys.
I don't know what I'm going to do when we eventually need to fork.
Agree. Just because you CAN contribute to the development of the Core client somehow, first of all doesn't mean you should, secondly it doesn't give your opinion any additional weight as far as understanding the purpose of Bitcoin. If your ideas suck, I don't care what you do, in or out of Bitcoin. And just because you understand how some code works doesn't mean that this code should be there.
Definitely don't ever trust a Luke.
I've asked him if he's open to other developers working on Knots, and he said he is. He's said the same publicly, I believe.
At least Knots appears to be doing what it advertises. And it does what I want, at that. So I use it.
Other clients may be coming. But it takes a while to develop.
For now, I'm at least happy for the optionality that Knots provides. If nothing else, it lets me ignore Core and prevents their implementation from being unanimous. It highlights the problem.
Yes and github was designed for a completely different paradigm of corporate development. The tooling is enabling this mindset which I think is an underrated problem. And I mean specifically the mindset of the authority.
Yes. The authority wielded by the current Core team is the specific problem here. Their fiat decree dictates how the plebs should behave. I will not comply.
I think the push back is good.
I think the debate is good.
I think we need a new fork.
To clarify: what kind of fork?
Bitcoin core
So another client fork?
Ok, definitely agree with that.
I think this resume to this simple question.
¿Bitcoin should be only a monetary system or could be a data system?
nostr:nevent1qqs2tmqyr5ea82uwkra6x34tv730h9en80fe6jflnahzy8wf50neg3qpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgq3qfk8h6g8zhftw8c7pga2zjd84p2z949up5lc3qdchm9v4m0q7mwwsxpqqqqqqzmarfd9
As a person who is somewhat new to bitcoin and really fresh as a node runner, my choice was Knots. Not saying that I understand all the nuances of the debate akd basing my decision on that, but as far as I've understood, bitcoin has grown to where it is with more or less using the filters and the defaults right know in use in Knots.
If there are no well reasoned arguments given by the ones making the changes to Core, my sats are with Knots. At least until proper arguments are shown or until bitcoin will wreck itself and I need to power off my node for good.
