Which Fork will you Sell and/or Keep? Bitcoin Knots vs Bitcoin Core \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Which Fork will you Sell and/or Keep? Bitcoin Knots vs Bitcoin Core

2625 sats \ 67 comments \ @028559d218 2 Oct bitcoin

There will be a hard-fork eventually between the 2 'ideologies' I believe...

Core believes that 'spam' is unfortunate and it's not what Bitcoin is designed for. However it is impossible to stop, because Bitcoin is fundamentally information and the 'free market' for Blockspace (just like the freemarket for drugs, computers, sex, guns or EVERYTHING else) determines fees and prices.

OP_return is the least harmful way for arbitrary information to propagate... and 'degens' will always find a way to 'degen' (it's what they do) they aren't interested in what they are actually "degenning" over....

Just that they can make a quick buck with it, and there are endless possibilities/arbitrary configurations for information to appear that otherwise wouldn't have any value.

Furthermore, the defense against real attackers has always been and will always be fees. Attackers can burn fees with arbitrary transactions without any arbitrary data included and DoS the network for a time. The cost or opportunity cost of doing so is the primary reason they can't/won't and have largely stopped.

<--------------->

Knots users believe that Bitcoin must be "pure" and "money-only" and miners will give up 'fees' even in a high-fee environment to make people feel good. Certain 'personalities' can and should 'influence' the network with a large group of 'followers'...

And even those followers who 'pay no fees' and 'have no skin' in the Blockspace fee-market should get to decide what Blockspace is for far beyond the limitations of Consensus Rules or the fees paid by actual users.

Social pressure, up to and including shaming developers who have different political views, social views or a different lifestyle (sex/religion etc) is good and necessary and "more important" than economic incentives.

There's no way, according to many Knots users, for the Blockspace "fee market" now or in the future to "self-regulate" and be primarily monetary... despite the obvious incentives of 'high-value' UTXOs and REAL digital scarcity.

Humans don't want or can't use... Gold. They want Crayon-Art (demonstrated by the price of Crayons) and Gold cannot/has not kept relevance compared to melta-able colored-wax in history.

There will always be a market for "jpeg monkey NFTs" that are infinitely reproducible... sound money like Bitcoin is only valuable when people get "influenced" and read English-language twitter. It is hopeless.

Therefore, it follows that the "thought-leaders" in Bitcoin should be English-language influencers, people on Twitter, and most importantly the government. The government would get 'offended' if anyone did anything illegal with the Bitcoin Blockchain, and we need "the government" for the "number to go up" after all.

Bitcoin's technical fundamentals are simply not enough for Bitcoin to be 'self-sustainable...' people don't want to use Hard Money and the government is our friends.

<------------------>

I don't know about many of you, but I don't like the controversy in Bitcoin, it detracts from the real issues (like state surveillance and "kill your customer") and it takes valuable development time away from dedicated programmers and other advocates.

However, I don't like the authoritarian top-down perspectives of some "Bitcoiners"... and I believe that markets can self-regulate and should to be healthy.

Therefore when there is a Knots-Fork I will be selling the Bitcoin Knots-Coins and purchasing more Bitcoin Core-Coins. I have thought about this a long time, it is not an easy decision for someone New to Bitcoin (like me) but I think it is the right thing to do.

So my Stackers and Friends... what will YOU do?

Sell my "Bitcoin Core" Fork8.3%

Sell my "Bitcoin Knots" Fork54.2%

Keep Both27.1%

I'm Not Sure10.4%

48 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

171 sats \ 13 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Oct

Both are trying to make Bitcoin more like ethereum and not less, it's a false feud, monetary maxis don't have a dog in the fight and just have to not upgrade.

Maybe if there's an important enough fix needing a backport we can crowdsource an enterprise focused fork from an old base.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

How is Knots trying to make bitcoin more ethereum-like? Knots is updating with the status-quo filters in place that core has used for 15 years.

Running knots means you are protesting the decision by core, and you want some of the enhanced features and of course the filter options to remain in place for your own node.

Core is changing mempool policy to be more like ethereum sure, but neither "side" is pushing a fork.

45 sats \ 6 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3 Oct

Filters are noise.

This is the signal.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

The current release of bitcoin knots does not have any flags for CTV.

131 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3 Oct

By switching to Knots you're endorsing this roadmap through action, when you need not do anything at all.

No one is forcing you to update, nor should you ever run latest in production.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

You are correct that updating at this point is not required.

I disagree that running knots today is endorsing Luke's "roadmap" in bitcoin. I run the software that best suits my needs at the moment.

At this moment, I also have a need to demonstrate my objections to Core's "roadmap"

Why would Core dev's attitude so drastically change from this tweet in 2023?

To me, it is an issue of Governance over bitcoin. (which should not exist.)

A "reference" client's dev team does not push contentious updates without a clear and present danger, and broad social-consensus support. If any single dev team gains a governance authority, like what the ethereum devs had when "deciding" that it was time to go Proof of Stake, then we have a much bigger problem than spam on our hands.

Knots breaking 20% of the network exceeds the UASF 15% during the Blocksize war. I believe there are sound motivations for demonstrating action.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3 Oct

I run the software that best suits my needs at the moment

Tell me one thing you need Knots for that isn't satisfied by an old version of Core, v27 for example.

At this moment, I also have a need to demonstrate my objections to Core's "roadmap"

You can virtue signal on the GitHub repo while running v27

To me, it is an issue of Governance over bitcoin. (which should not exist.)

Oh you'll love my other posts then

#1235102

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

Tell me one thing you need Knots for that isn't satisfied by an old version of Core, v27 for example.

The client flag. Also, this is the default QT page for spam filtering in knots, the software makes it easy to refuse relaying inscriptions to other nodes pre-confirmation.

You can virtue signal on the GitHub repo while running v27

No I can't, because the Moderators banned "non technical" discussion. In addition, 20% alternative client use for the first time in bitcoin's history is more effective than "virtue-signalling" https://coin.dance/nodes

Archiving Core is one thing every Bitcoiner should agree upon.

I agree with that. Have a great day.

view all 1 replies

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 Oct

just have to not upgrade.

Not upgrading... would still be in lock-step/consensus with Core 30 right? So 'not upgrading' would be on the Core-Side.

216 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Oct

No, consensus is, else is a hardfork.

Not upgrading is resistance to changes to consensus.

Both Core and Knots are in lock step wanting to bring covenants (and therefore ethereum scale trash) to Bitcoin, upgrading Core or switching to Knots are supporting ethereumification.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 2 Oct

Interesting. Thank you for your perspective... I was with the understanding that covenants had been put on the 'back burner' for the time being.

If changing op_return size creates this kind of conflict imagine what a covenants soft-fork would do and that's why we haven't had one. Does larger op_returns mean covenants are more likely? My understanding is that covenants are additional spending conditions.

67 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Oct

It's a red herring, op_return relay size isn't consensus. The fact the fight over it is so cringe will make covenants easier to astroturf, Core and Knots unity narrative.

They're not on the back burner, it's simply that the stage is being set. Optics are everything.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

no. social-consensus is on the filter side and has been for 15 years since satoshi created them in 2010.

Please be aware there are 2 ways to use the word "consensus" in bitcoin:

Technical- consensus rules are what define bitcoin, as opposed to relay policy for example. Two nodes can have different policy, yet remain in consensus.

Social / non-technical / natural language- social-consensus means that there is wide support and limited dissent for something.

Core devs used to agree that social-consensus is very important in FOSS software development:

Today, Core is breaking social-consensus by pushing this controversial relay policy update- but they are not breaking technical consensus, and neither is knots.

The question is, what changed with the Core dev team?

75 sats \ 22 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Oct

I'll need a lot more information than I have now, but I'll definitely dump one for the other.

I don't think it's clear what the actual dimensions of the fork will/would be yet and I'd caution everyone to make sure you're not just hearing strawman versions of either side. There will be an incredible amount of financial motive for each side to "win" and there will be a ton of misportraying each other's positions.

It will matter a lot to me which side the people who use bitcoin as stateless money are flocking to.

63 sats \ 21 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 Oct

There will be an incredible amount of financial motive for each side to "win" and there will be a ton of misportraying each other's positions.

I remember in some of the 'mega-discussions' posted by @Murch (which were awesome btw) what hard-fork would actually be required to permanently 'fix' the inscriptions and op_return issues. IE no inscriptions at all and no op_return at all which is datacarriersize=0? So that these things never propagate.

I have read about soft-fork proposals and more drastic hard-fork things... but it gets seriously in the weeds.

One thing I do believe is that there will be a fork eventually though Knots-users really really want it.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 3 Oct

I don’t recall claiming that getting rid of data embedding would require a hardfork. I do however think that effectively combating data embedding would require significant cuts to Bitcoin’s scripting capabilities.

0 sats \ 19 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Oct

What makes you think Knots users really really want a fork?

That's something I see them accused of, but the evidence for it hasn't impressed me.

My sense is that what they want is for Core to ease up on some of the v30 changes and reconsider the path they're taking forward.

0 sats \ 18 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 Oct

Knots users say to 'run knots'. There are legions of them on Nostr and Youtube and Twitter although I suspect some of them are bots.

What happens when core 30 gets released? Well the degens will show up attracted to the very controversy that is being generated... and come up ways to 'gamble' on something in op_return it could be absolutely anything. A new NFT new crayon-drawing new token the possibilities are endless.

"Run Knots" which is effectively a relay policy could eventually shift to "become Knots"... our 'filtering' isn't effective and core won't budge. And once people are Running Core 30 it doesn't get un-released it's out there?

So influencers in the Knots space will eventually pivot to other solutions that invalidate the arbitrary data in blocks creating their own separate chain.

The ironic thing I think is that once they start 'invalidating' the blocks they will create more controversy... so the spammers will show up to the knots-chain too and find some way to speculate on something. Then I guess they hard-fork again? I don't know. The more you fork the more controversy the more spammers/etc.

If people don't speculate on your chain it means they don't care about it.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Jer 3 Oct

Knots users say to 'run knots' Anyone who tells anyone else what code to run is a bad actor and should be dismissed as such.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Oct

What's the difference between telling and suggesting?

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Jer 3 Oct

The people telling are usually the ones selling something.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 3 Oct

In this case, who's selling what?

view all 4 replies

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Oct

Be careful about trying to read other people's intentions, especially those you aren't inclined to think well of.

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 Oct

I used to think extremely well of Matt Kratter but he has completely gone off the deep end IMO.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Oct

How so? I don't watch all of his videos but the ones I catch still seem reasonable.

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @leaf 3 Oct

How about this one on mental telepathy https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fWyxzoFWAzs

Or this one about how JFK shot down a UFO https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6syCI3yKH6Q

view all 6 replies

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @senf 3 Oct

I agree with you, but I think we'd all be better if we tried to steelman the other side more. Being snarky is fun, but I don't think it leads us to a better place.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 Oct

I have tried for hours and hours.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 3 Oct

If knots forked I would ping Luke with a "What the hell... Why?" (I don't think knots will fork) because a consensus level change is completely unnecessary. This is just a mempool policy that users get to independently decide on.

I am once again asking for Bitcoin nodes to be more modular and less monolithic

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 3 Oct

If users get to decide, and everyone is free and honorable in their choice of which node software to run...

Then why do Knots users care what Core does? Core users can run Core, and Knots users can run Knots etc and that way everyone can be happy.

Everyone is free to set their own mempool/relay policies as they see fit... Why would it matter then what 'percentage' of the network runs Knots if it is purely an individual choice? It could be 2%, it could be 65% it's purely an individual choice... and people can mine or relay etc whatever they choose based usually on fees/ideology/personal preference etc.

I agree that it is just mempool policy... but being that it is, it doesn't really matter what Core does because everyone is free to choose their own mempool policies and participate together.

To say otherwise... doesn't make sense to me.

53 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 3 Oct

Why do knots users care what core does?

Knots users are people who were core users. The complaints represent a desire to return if core started doing what they wanted again.
Knots uses core as a base. Luke reimplements all of his changes on the newest forked version of Core every release.

As far as why the percents matter... I could explain it, but it's been explained to death and don't care about it to begin with lol.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 2 Oct

I'm sorry, but I'll have to wait and see which one ultimately becomes bitcoin. Because I don't feel strongly enough about either of this, I just want to be on the chain that will support continued bitcoin adoption in the future.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 Oct

Makes sense

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 2 Oct

Keep both and let the market play it out.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 2 Oct

Interesting. Thank you for your perspective

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 3 Oct

Keep both! I’m all in. Let the dust settle and I’ll be fine!

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @falsefaucet 3 Oct

im gonna be that guy. 'i dont like the controversy in Bitcoin'

lets have a poll to continue it.....sounds like you may like the controversy "what will YOU do?'

educate yourself. make a decision as a node runner.

fuck you money requires responsibility.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 3 Oct

I don't like controversy... however it's what people want to talk about, and I want to have an informed discussion.

I think continuing with Core is the right thing to do... because I think that un-limiting/un-restricting the sizes of op_return is the 'right thing' to do in the long run.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @88b0c423eb 4 Oct

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @88b0c423eb 3 Oct

I wonder what will happen to LN in that scenario.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

Ln software would also have to be forked to continue operating on the new alt-coin if I am not mistaken.

This scenario is not likely. The fake news about knots wanting to hardfork was a psyop.

#1238009

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @88b0c423eb 3 Oct

I know and agree about knots fork being a psyop, still a fork (more likely from core) is still possible.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 Oct

What core is doing isn't a fork. It is backwards compatible.

Someone who runs Core 29 or 29.1 for example has to do 'nothing' and everything is forwards/backwards compatible.

Knots on the other hand by activating an anti-spam hard fork, is changing consensus rules and creating their own fork. That is the point of the write-up and what I was trying to address. Core is not proposing a fork

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

Anybody can fork bitcoin at any time, the question is, would you have the backing and economic energy switch from bitcoin- to the new altcoin?

There was much less investment and much more confusion about bitcoin in the 2017 blocksize war than there is today.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @88b0c423eb 3 Oct

true

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 Oct

My post as the 'op' wasn't related to the Lukejr article. I'm not sure that article is credible or relevant...

But I do think there will be a fork eventually otherwise how will the concerns of the Knots enthusiasts be addressed or satisfied?

Clearly to them (which is totally their choice) running Core isn't acceptable, and neither is the spam. Spam isn't going to be 100% solved under core v30... and it isn't solved now either.

So a serious, meaningful solution needs to be found which invalidates such spam in blocks itself and if that invalidates 'core' blocks then it's a hard fork.

What am I missing?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

You are focusing on the spam problem too much.

There are many ways we can filter and fight it, but nothing is going to work or even matter if the core devs have control over Bitcoin that allows them to push unwanted changes whenever they want.

The solutions to the technical questions will be solved more easily after this current political/philosophical debate about the proper role of Core dev maintainers.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @88b0c423eb 3 Oct

You're missing core devs with their ego not fixing a but since version 25 and calling it a feature: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-50428 While the devs from knots fixed it.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 3 Oct

Question - how did the fix in Knots come about? Was it through limiting the size of Witness scripts? or simply targeting the op_if op_endif combination for [non]relay?

My research on this at the time... was that most Core developers thought the arbitrary data combination could easily be replicated with other opcodes, slightly changed, and repeated or reproduced ever so slightly different.

So it would be like 'whack a mole' because the exact scripts could be changed slightly again and again and filtering each time would do more harm than good.

Today, the reason for not 'filtering' is that the 90% threshold would never be met... and filtering inscriptions today would harm the mempool, fee estimation, and be ineffective regardless a net negative.

So it has not been changed.

The other explanations I've read is that larger witness 'blobs' aren't economic... the NFTs or jpegs are DoS attacks noone is really buying them. Attackers will change or alter their attack ever so slightly... because they don't care about the arbitrary data ITSELF, just attacking Bitcoin noone is buying monkey jpegs.

Which I also think is true.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @88b0c423eb 3 Oct

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

ALSO- there is not "2 forks", in the event of a contentious hard fork (which is extremely unlikely) 1 version will be compatible with bitcoin (the original chain satoshi first mined in 2009) and the hard fork will not be. Easy to tell the difference and which one to sell.

Again, there is currently almost no chance of a real, contentious, economically backed hard fork to occur.

You should read The Blocksize War, by Jonathan Bier https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57429394-the-blocksize-war

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 3 Oct

This is ridiculous, no one is proposing a fork. https://x.com/cguida6/status/1973826768084914238

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 Oct

That's not true. And I can read the tea leaves.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsAndSports 2 Oct

Bitcoin Knobs

https://github.com/TABConf/bitcoinknobs

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @d9a2a686d9 3 Oct

ETFs holdings huge sums of Bitcoin, corporations like Microstategy, public Bitcoin mining companies etc. will all go to Knots because they don't like the risk that they are directly or in directly holding the entire Bitcoin blockchain that contains illegal material.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 Oct

Even if the corporations run Knots... they are still storing and relaying and verifying "illegal material" that might, could, possibly be in blocks.

Even a non-listening node relays blocks to other nodes, right? That could have 'illegal data'? Meaning that the only way to prevent 'illegal material' is to run a pruned node... that prunes op_returns and witness script that isn't necessary.

That would probably work, although there could be 'illegal data' inside fake public keys or unspendable addresses too (that's my understanding).

If the 'solution' is to restrict what transactions get relayed... then corporations could run "blocks only" and not have a mempool.

Then they could prune their node and ditch all the op_returns... but if they're doing that what is the point of knots?