Thread

But we solved miNeR ceNTRaLiZaTioN

Why would it be ridiculous? That's a very strong term! Is your argument that the information from confirmed blocks is already enough? Even if you think that, "barely affected" seems vague, and "a few dozen spam txs" seems weirdly specific?

> Why would it be ridiculous? Because in a system like the mempool, if a relatively small difference was actually bad, then a relatively large difference should be worse. But in reality, the largest possible difference between mempools is for one person to have a really big one and for another person not to have one at all. And even in that extreme case, feerate estimates are barely affected. (See below.) Since the largest possible difference has very little affect, it is absurd to monger fear about a much smaller difference (i.e. the difference between a Core mempool and a Knots mempool). > "barely affected" seems vague Let me try to make this claim more specific. Feerate estimates are exceptionally variable, and, in nodes which *have* a mempool, it changes subtly based on the order in which unconfirmed transactions appear to your node, which is not enforced by any policy. Therefore, even when two nodes have the same mempool policy, I don't expect them to have matching estimates except when fees are minimal (i.e. when it gets "stuck" at 1). As a result, I am unwilling to say "blocksonly mode makes no difference at all," as anyone might then try to make me look foolish by displaying a side by side comparison and saying "look, there's technically a slight difference," amd you denied *any* difference. But I can still be more specific by saying the following. I *would* look foolish if the following supposition is wrong: the variance between a blocksonly node's feerate estimates and a Core v30 node's feerate estimates are probably within 1 standard deviation of the "natural" variance between two nodes that have an identical mempool policy.

The difference might be small most of the time and yet still might be extremely important. If there is a sudden arrival of 100 transactions with big fees and big size in vbytes they might blow out estimates, and you don't see it if you are blocksonly. It still might be true that "the difference is on average very small" if this only happens very occasionally, but it stands to reason that without this information you are at a disadvantage in trying to judge what fee to use for fast confirmation.

Still jumping through hoops to support a lunatic. Really lining up to make it your whole thing that you support the guy who wants to grant himself power to rollback the chain at will? You have made your name on lightning and privacy and Luke is out to destroy both. Please read up on the difference between rationality and rationalisation.

I'm not aware of anything I've said in support of Luke Dashjr

Supporting knots is supporting him.

It's possible to like the product without liking the producer To be clear, I do like Luke, but I think the closest I've come to "supporting" him is the phrase "I do like Luke" in this sentence And if that crosses the line for you, then I think your line is weirdly placed

> If there is a sudden arrival of 100 transactions with big fees and big size in vbytes they might blow out estimates, and you don't see it if you are blocksonly.

I doubt there would be a material difference even in that case. I wonder if anyone has tried this experimentally on regtest to see if it's true.

Luke repeatedly picks a line that blocks existing privacy tech as his spam line. Knots was created to block gambling and porn financial transactions. Privacy and freedom are not a weird place to draw a line. I don't see anyway to profess to support Bitcoin and claim they are with a straight face.

I'd love to be shown in the source and config where it does either of these things. Luke's off the rails with BIP 444, and I won't be running anything v30+. But the Knots v27 I've been running for over a year does a nice job of what it says it does: refusing to relay ordinals, inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, and OP_RETURNs over 40 bytes. And, like any other Bitcoin implementation, letting you transact monetarily with whoever the fuck you want. What Luke wants to do isn't particularly of importance. Not sure when bitcoiners decided personalities mattered more than code.

> Not sure when bitcoiners decided personalities mattered more than code. When their arguments stopped making sense

keep your little fat black fingers off the code, nigger.

Paynym and whirlpool are both blocked by knots because they require data on chain and Luke set his threshold for what counts as spam too low. So transact monetarily but only with no privacy.

Samourai (or Ashigaru) are hardly the only way to do Bitcoin privacy. Or, dare I say, the best, given that Joinmarket is still running strong. Also trivial to up datacarriersize to 83 if you want it.