pull down to refresh

The Spam Wars!!!
  1. I think Core has started to drift from the original intent of Bitcoin which is a system for the transfer and storage of value. The way I see it is that Core is trying to modify the code to allow all kinds of data into the blockchain which does not necessarily have anything to do with the original intent. This opens up the possibility of random clutter to be introduced into the blocks which then may impede legitimate transactions from being processed. This could not only severely slow down value transfer but it could also allow seriously harmful Spam to be permanently inserted into the blocks which will then be there forever. Can you imagine child porn etc. in the blockchain forever in everyone’s computer?
  1. Knots is the alternative that seems to honour Satoshi’s original intent for the protocol. Since the Spam Wars started, Knots’ adoption has jumped from approx. 2% of the network to 17%. So people are voicing their displeasure. Two more things… One: Not everyone might upgrade to the next version of core which is one way to resist the changes and Two: It seems like Core may have been infiltrated by intruders who want to corrupt Bitcoin from the inside…
More people may still switch over to Knots before the changes are finally released. We need more people to become nodes with their own servers.
I'm thinking of switching to Knots on my server. I’m concerned about this and hope people will resist this change. It might be that this "war” is even more serious than the Block Size wars!
What do you think? Who would you stand with?
Knotz75.0%
Core25.0%
20 votes \ poll ended
you can run any software you like.
no one is talking about changing consensus.
what is at stake is only relay policy...
how is it a war?
reply
op_return is a part of the consensus. You can't carve off little bits here and there when it's convienient to you and think that consensus isn't impacted.
reply
Indeed.
reply
Core needs to be archived because its very existence squats on a legacy that's upstream of blind downloads and perceived authority.
This is bad for both ossifists with a high bar for change, and people that want changes Core can veto or bikeshed.
Forks would then have to earn downloads and influence on merit and not the legacy of those that came before.
On the one hand Knots being tip-of-the-spear in challenging Core warrants support, but on the other chosing the wrong hill to die on, poor change control, and overall PR posture risks strengthening Core's position. It'll take a 3rd fork to thread the needle before any serious progress can be made in weakening the Bitcoin shadow government that is the NGO's funding Core.
BTCD and Libbitcoin are the most important projects no one talks about because the Core base controls mining.
reply
Make babies, not coreknotsnerdwars.
reply
I stand with the protocol consensus.
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 2 Sep
You can run Spaces Protocol on both core and knots so doesn't really matter.
reply
I run Core with datacarriersize=0
Knots is too slow on my pi4 and cannot sync
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @dgy 18h
With datacarriersize=0 you also block out use cases like Bisq etc.
reply
Ok, thanks. Don't use Bisq and did not notice any problems. If I do, will change to 40 or 80.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dgy 18h
Yes, the resource of Knots seem to be quite higher.
Any suggestion how configuration can be optimized or feedback about minimal hardware requirements would be highly appreciated.
reply
2 sats \ 1 reply \ @j7hB75 2 Sep
Snapshot1 as of the date of this comment:

Footnotes

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dgy 2 Sep
If you only consider the latest versions of both implementation then the share is almost 50% each.
Most node runner (28.1 and earlier) did not yet upgrade or changed implementation.
reply
knots, but not for the misunderstood technically wrong reasons stated in your OP.
reply