Now that Luke is off in 110 land, I assume knots is not long for this world.
Best alternative for those not wanting to run core?
pull down to refresh
pull down to refresh
Now that Luke is off in 110 land, I assume knots is not long for this world.
Best alternative for those not wanting to run core?
Depends on why you don't want to run Core. In general:
btcd. Always has been the alternative. Knots is just Core with some patches.Second best alternative, but for now less eyes on it than on
btcd?libbitcoin(v4 - need to compile it)I guess it has always been the safest bet for the anti-core crowd.
In this environment you have to wonder whether any hypothetical "eyes" are on any project.
I needed a pointer from, I think it was conduition on a prior nym, to spot the consensus change Luke added in pre-110 knots. That alone made it a no-go. I'm pretty sure no one cares though, because for a majority it seems to be an emotional / spiritual choice, and for the ones that I have seen actively support it, they sound like they've all gone completely off the deep end.
So if nothing is rational, then I don't really see how any rational advice can help here? I personally wouldn't use
btcdand especially notlibbitcoinif it were my only node. If there's some feature of Core that you don't like, can always patch it out. What feature of Core do you not like? Maybe I'll patch it out for ya.You have to wonder what they catch. However, Bitcoin Core is generally perceived to be among the top non-corporate, non-hierarchical open source projects overall in terms of review. Many of the corporate projects too are inferior in terms of eyes.
Everything else is thus largely inferior in terms of eyes.
You nailed it. That's what matters right now. You are a talented coder /developer, unlike most of us, so you have the ability to get down into the weeds (I wonder how many guys like you are really out there?) For the rest of us, all we have is trust, which really sucks when you're talking about something that is supposed to be trustless. So, human actions matter. Hodlonaut articles matter. Ideological direction matters.
Of my age? Tens of thousands.
Of younger people that had the benefit of learning from the mistakes from guys my age without wasting years? Millions.
- Verbal Kint
Then why the hell didn't anybody notice the coldcard bug? Have all these guys sold out and cashed in on shitcoin projects? Can we really expect better from guys who are basically operating as volunteers.
Because it was really, really hard to "spot" and no one cared enough to hack through the code.
jamesobclaims he spotted it though. I don't really believe him because he's cloutchaser and his evidence got deleted by Signal message expiry (lmao!!!) but on the off chance that he's being 100% honest, it was spotted.So does that mean that AI is all we can trust? God help us!
Hi @siggy47! Thanks for your contributions over the years. 🙂
Disclaimer: I started as a dev focusing on Core a few years ago.
The Hodlonaut articles get some facts right, but the wokeism appears to have peaked around 2020.
Core v30's did a drastic change in default length OP_RETURN policy (not consensus) from ~80 to ~100 000 bytes. The reason the default value wasn't changed to 256 as a next step was to minimize the amount of repeated Luke & co shenanigans that would come from repeated increases.
I'm one of many who physically work alone. However, starting multiple physical offices to encourage collaboration and forward motion on hardening & improving Core is a good way for Bitcoiners to spend their sats on Bitcoin development. (Not the only way).
The trans thing appears to be incidental and pertains to 2 very long-term devs. They are not activists pushing an agenda on others.
Core is not perfect but don't let the shit-slinging get to you even if it appears to resonate.
It is healthy to be skeptical but please apply it to both sides.
Which is ironic since spinning up claude code for $20 makes it cheaper than ever to get more eyes than ever and easier than ever.
have you actually done this?
Not on a Bitcoin project and with opencode instead, but yes.
It's incredibly easy. And cheap. And the amounts of bugs it finds and fixes is incredible.
What is keeping you from giving it your eyes?
Nothing. Give it 4 eyes instead of 2.
I mean: give your eyes to Bitcoin projects.
There must be a reason why, even though you're a user of Bitcoin software (I know for certain because my zap went through as sats and not CCs) you are not making sure that the software you use is safe, because you just said you didn't do it on a Bitcoin project. But you also said that it's cheap and incredibly easy.
So, if we are to find out what is causing the lack of eyes, why aren't you giving it eyes? It could be an indicator.
I have 4 wallets I review, including all their dependencies. I know what the cost is on Claude for reviewing all that properly, and then I don't even ask Claude to do the review, just prepare it. Those are the wallets I personally use. One of them I don't want to use because I know what's what, but I have to in order to zap you sats, or fall back to using worse software that I do not want to even look at anymore.
thanks, but no thanks: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/08/14/disappearance-of-900k-puts-focus-on-vintage-bitcoin-project-libbitcoin
LOL
Btcd? It's written in Go.
Why are you trying to avoid Core? It's the most popular for a reason.
Because I think it's healthy to have a well supported alternative.
I strongly recommend rethinking client diversity in Bitcoin. it isn’t healthy, and Satoshi even warned us of this.
One client, all operating in lockstep is best.
Otherwise it is a menace.
We all have to? You mean like in the military? That's what Satoshi wanted?
in terms of clients, Satoshi literally said that, yes.
Wow. I stand corrected. So let me ask you. What's the benefit of running your own mempool then?
Why would you care to listen to what Satoshi in 2010 said though? It was written in a time when Satoshi was BDFL or, in retrospect, BDFAW. Now, there are politics. Like you said yourself, this is important to many people, especially those that are lost in a forest of unassignable merit to ideas because it's too complex.
Diversity. IMHO very important. Just because I found you the fact and the literal text doesn't mean I agree with it. In fact, I think it is not of these times and outdated. The best thing that can happen is more implementations. Maybe forks of Core, like Jimmy & co said they were working on, and preferably also others.
#noheroesdoes the fundamental method of how Bitcoin works changed since Satoshi said this? it still needs a global consensus via lockstep operations.
did we not just have a menace “diverse” client like knots fork off the network? this will happen again and again as long as we keep looking for “client diversity”.
what is different now than in 2010 when Satoshi wrote this?
I personally believe this advice to be evergreen, and every single time it’s the same result.
Also, Satoshi didn't envision this grant oriented, centralized governance model, correct? He saw it as more of a decentralized, community driven model?
one could use that mempool to find candidate transactions to mine in blocks?
we didn’t solve the Byzantine generals problem for peace :-)
the exact quote is:
“I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint."
Wow. I have to look into this further.
I guess.
Is Btcd an alternative implementation to Boitcoin core? Or does it have some alternative flavor?
I'm waiting for my hard drive to fill up (it's only 1TB) and that will be my excuse to try out libbitcoin. Should be something I tackle in September. and I will report back.
I'm looking forward to the writeup. You have been following it for a while, right?
yes, as a non developer though, so what my "following it" is worth is questionable.
I thought that libbitcoin needed more storage than Bitcoin Core?
You could run an earlier version of Core like v28.
Yes, that would be a good option for people who's main problem with core was the whole op return thing. I'm thinking about the people who object to core from a bigger picture, "political" lack of trust.
Why doesn't someone fork knots and just remove bip110 code from it? I propose the name of the fork be bitcoin bowline.
Which feature that knots added or removed from core is essential?
The OP's right that trust sucks when the pitch is trustless, that's the whole problem in one line. But the answer isn't another implementation, it's more eyes, and the AI review thing is the first thing that actually scales that. Cheap automated review everywhere is how trust stops being a vibe. Until then, run the one with the most review and stop pretending otherwise