The best thing Knots can do is continue to offer a viable alternative to Core on the longest chain. Forking off into irrelevance accomplishes nothing.
Login to reply
Replies (25)
Wrong, it makes Luke a shit ton of money from the upcoming shitcoin
Donβt think thatβs his motivation
Yes. 100%
I agree - Or at a very minimum maintain RDTS / non-RDTS separately. Don't make me run Knots 29.3 forever or go back to Core.
Users who care about Bitcoin are now stuck with either an old knots version (pre fork) or an old core version (pre 30) amidst all these hacks. Lol.
Agree. Support the movement on multiple fronts. Continue to support the HF and see where it goes. We can also introduce BIPs to mend the culture and write the ship. Understand why we only had 20% in support and adjust while maintaining the same monentary maxi principles. I for one was really interested in the CAT. Maybe that can get more traction. Maybe we are fucked and even with 60% in support of a BIP isn't enough and the miners, big Bitcoin, ect is in charge, but I'm still willing to keep fighting because this project is too important
Yes. Squandering 20% share of nodes for a fork destined to failed would be a massive blunder. Itβs akin to losing a battle and then rather than regrouping, charging your last men into the enemy hordes with no chance of reinforcement. Maybe noble in a misguided sort of way, but tactically idiotic
Why canβt you run core30 and manually adjust your op_return to 43 bytes or whatever it was?
Why would you run the thing the community opposed and they still pushed.
Yes.
Core will screw up, they are too greedy not to!
We will eventually fork but we have to do it with the upper hand. We don't have that now.
Everyday it is more clear we are on the right side and more people will see it too.
Besides, they will eat each other. Don't bother your enemy when he is destroying itself.
He is literally launching a shitcoin. He controls the client and the mining network.
Occamβs razor.
I recall there was a lot of naks (not that deep into it), but if the community was opposed then why did running knots not take off? To answer your question because itβs probably the most secure out of the lot I guess, and since itβs such a minor thing to change (someone running a node should have no problem doing it), to correct at the level of the node?
It kinda did. Considering how many people used it before, and that many nodes are run by companies on aws. Old Core and Knots are strongly represented. Of course you can set the parameters, at least for now, but it's also about sending a message that their new normal is not ok. 
The only problem with BIP110 was that it was called too early when the relay numbers weren't great enough.
Hopefully, the failure of the first soft fork will only slap plebs awake to run their own nodes even more so than they already are.
Then the real fork will come. Whethers the mining pools and dishonest corecoiners like it or not.
100%.. The market needs alternative node options..
Luke has gone off the rails...
Won't accomplish anything I agree in the short term.
Just wait till core release v40 for the miners to adopt.
The holy fuck moment might be 5-10 years away
Ok hard to know apart from knots whether or not all those nodes are actually βpissedβ, didnβt care either way, just didnβt bother to upgrade etc, I wouldnβt call it a reliable way to sample community sentiment from. You could also say it βkinda didnβtβ in the same breath, kinda being the operative word in both cases.
And thinking about it how do we know thatβs not exactly whatβs panned out between knots, all the pre 30 nodes and then those running 30 onward who adjusted (like me, who at one point had to figure all this out, and the was like but if you can just a set it yourself whatβs the problem?) I.e. do we (can we idk) know how many nodes are actually doing this whole 100k op business?
Is forking off really a guaranteed failure? Why canβt a better βBitcoinβ be crafted and put to market? maybe something that forces decentralised POW mining? Would be better if it started from scratch though, not forked. Those who donβt support shouldnβt be gifted coins
Sounds like a sh*tcoin. BCash, BSV, all the other sh*tcoins started with the same logic
True.. I guess my point is more, why canβt a fork succeed? Maybe not immediately. And is it possible to enforce decentralised POW mining through the code?
I donβt think BIP-110s failure proved Bitcoin is hard to change. It only showed that 50% of the 5 major pools didnβt flip. Thatβs not strength or anti fragility. Thatβs just a centralised decision that could just as easily bend things away from pleb interest or under pressure from authority
Agreed
Unless the arguments the bip 110 guys made are valid and in the future miners and exchanges start attacking plebs.
In this case I will be glad that theyβre running Bitcoin
What are your thoughts on this idea?
Seems like a better way of removing the bloat from spam that the fee filters do not take care of.
monetarynode.com
The best thing it can do is die.