pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 17 Jan \ on: What’s the difference between brainwashing and teaching your kids? FiresidePhilosophy
if you teach them not to think for themselves, and discourage critical thinking, you are brain washing them.
well it could be, since such a bug would reveal a consensus rule previously unknown, that would then likely need to be accounted for by core with guard rails. theres been examples of this in the past.
its interesting you bring up the gentoo issue too. someone else said the same thing to me recently. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2iuf4s/lukejrs_public_apology_for_poor_gentoo_packaging/
from my reading, this was an unintentional fuck up, that had no effect on anyone? that he maturely owned up to.
nullc even states in that thread "OTOH, while I strongly disagreed with the 'anti-spam' approach (and had long been nagging luke to do more pure behavioral matching on the abusive transaction behavior (censor-magnet, and UTXO bloating)), I am a little sad to see many people criticising a different distribution of Bitcoin Core not just for its own policy decisions but for being different at all.
There is no mandatory official Bitcoin, and when it comes to node policy-- (not consensus rules, of course)-- diversity is valuable, and people should have the ability to control what their computers are doing, how their resources are being spent, etc."
I think you're missing the point though. Knots does add something here. At minimum a faster IBD then core, and filters to exclude spam transactions from abusing my nodes mempool resources.
It's not a fork in the way you describe. It's a within consensus fork, still part of the consensus majority.
I don't believe luke is a sick man. Even if he was, that should be beside the point. Knots is open source bitcoin software. you can verify it for yourself.
As for being a hardfork risk. That risk is vastly overstated and could actually be a good thing. If we find a hardfork bug through some oddity, when the design spec is to be within consensus, then we've discovered a bug worth discovering, and can patch it.
So satoshi was wrong about a lot of things. He may have been right at the time though with this comment, given Bitcoin's infancy.
But things change, contexts evolve.
In the current environment, people are trusting core implicitly, and not verifying it. As a result core's become a bit of a monolith monopoly which can and has dictated down it's preferences to end users for non consensus parameters, such as filters.
Bitcoin the network is now robust enough to welcome in competing but compatible Bitcoin clients that won't be menaces to the network, but strengths.
You don't have to participate, run core, or not at all. But you can't prevent anyone else from running their version of Bitcoin. It's free open source software.
That's part of the reason for, why run knots. It's taking your liberty instead of asking for it. An expression of the Bitcoin ethos, to run the code you want in this world.
very nice deep dive.
so literally, clever/study of history's (satoshi) central unit (nakamoto) (fighting navy force that in peace time flipped it's name)
intriguing!
speaks of naval intelligence, subtly.
until the end of cyber monday, https://shopbitcoin.shop has 21% off their framed whitepapers with the discount code WHITEPAPER