I see many people getting into this endless debate "Core vs Knots".
I personally do not try to take any side, I try to use my rationale and tech experience and not follow with feelings just because X says so.
Recently I saw a tweet from Shinobi that catch my attention. I didn't know what he's talking about so I asked Kevin and Nitesh if they can give some details.
Shinobi's tweet: https://xcancel.com/brian_trollz/status/1966947159007506475
And Nitesh's answer: https://xcancel.com/nitesh_btc/status/1967235507508961590
And Kevin's precise answer:
Read more about Ephemeral anchors here: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/ephemeral-anchors/ and a more detailed explanation about here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/126098/pay-to-anchor-and-ephemeral-dust
I would like also to address another aspect that I do not see it mentioned in this debate.
For all those node runners signaling whatever software version of their bitcoin node, do you also know the difference between a "personal node" (aka unreachable) and a "full node" (aka reachable)?
- port 8333 open
- bitcoin.conf configured properly for more inbound connections and mempool size if you really want to be a seeder.
maxuploadtarget=<MiB per day>
listen=1
maxconnections=<num>
minrelaytxfee=
maxmempool=2000
mempoolexpiry=672
Otherwise is just useless virtue signaling or personal nodes, not full nodes.
I wonder how many of those Umbrel/Start9/mynodes/RPi nodes at home (also behind Tor) are real full nodes (reachable) that really help the network and relay properly.
And please don't come up with the bullshit excuse of "I am running X node to help the network". If your node is not reachable you are not "helping the network", you are using it only for personal use. That is perfectly fine, but please do not say that your shity RPi unreachable node behind Tor is "helping the network" or is helping in this stupid debate... it is not.
