Today, I'm making my stance on Knots vs core clear.

There are aspects of Knots I agree with. Namely, the philosophy of enabling options in the configuration file rather than making configurations more difficult for the sovereign node user. That's the part about Knots that people were rallying behind.

There was of course some other very debatable musings over whether me pool policy could prevent a block from getting mined or cause a block to be orphaned, however, these musings did originate from core maintainers, I don't mean Luke.

I don't care about such musings too much, but the sovereign node runner has the right to be wrong, no? I see this debate as being more about paternal Libertarianism, vs hands off libertarianism. The recent subversion away from that seems like a distraction from what matters.

There is a fundamental asymmetry in the developers ability to understand and make changes to the codebase that is meant to be a representation of the emergent social construct we're building together called Bitcoin. That asymmetry can without vigilance, lend itself to paternalism and maybe over time, aristocracy, and then oligarchy.

The conversation I was interested in seeing happen, was is our current process for "the reference implementation" really provide the resilient structure we need to stave off those undesirable tendencies of human nature into the future.

Any discussion about Luke's personality, or specifics about how Knots is run, is uninteresting, because at least to me, it kind of feels besides the point.