pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @pakovm 9h \ parent \ on: It's Knot a Serious Project by James Lopp bitcoin
You can also read the article and see that there's proof that code merged into Core has been reintroduced to Knots with changes, and there's no practical way to follow through those changes other than going line by line.
Also you can read in the conclusion, that it quite literally says:
Is bringing up Luke's security failures and eccentricities an ad hominem? I wish to be clear that while I disagree with Luke on a great many things, I support his right to say and do them. Unless he tries to put me in jail for raping his node, of course. I'd suggest we not cross that particular Rubicon.
But if we're looking at Luke through the lens of evaluating him for a leadership role in an open source project of immense global importance, as the sole maintainer of Knots I think it's quite relevant to consider his history and personal characteristics.
But nah, better just say "they are attacking my favourite bad actor, I will ignore this post, no matter the amount of proof that he is a bad actor".
write
preview
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @itsrealfake 8h
there's proof that code merged into Core has been reintroduced to Knots with changes
from Lopp's article (my emphasis):
We can see by putting the code diffs side by side that they are not the exact same. This is to be expected, because Knots code is not the exact same as Core.
yeah, you have two repositories, you're gonna have to have changes. if Lopp were less invested in destroying Luke & Knots, then he might advocate for resolving the challenges of keeping disparate applications in sync in ways other than defamation.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @02ad8239c2 9h
i did read the post, don't run a knots node, and don't have a favourite actor, good or bad - you seem emotionally attached to your position and are falsely assuming i am - my ad hom of core people puts the flawed character argument in context, to illustrate lopp's intent.
reply