pull down to refresh

Diversity may be bad for compatibility, but good for centralization. I will let you decide which is more important.
this territory is moderated
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 10h
BTC is already the most decentralized money we've ever had. I'd hate to have my node fall out of consensus or see a chain split occur just because I was virtue signaling over MuH ImPleMeNtaTiOn sO sPeCiaL and CoRe Is CeNtRaLiZinG BTC
I don't think a chain split will happen if many people run knots because, like I said, its just core with extra options. But we've seen issues with implementations that aren't a direct fork of core like btcd (golang). If you were running btcd node when this happend... https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bug-took-down-part-of-the-lightning-network
...then your node would have been kicked off the network, unable to get new blocks until patched. If thats the cost of being marginally more decentralized, then I don't think it's worth the tradeoff IMO. But run whatever node you want. It's not my problem if BTC rejects your node or you end up creating a shitcoin in the process.
reply
Yes, I will 🙂
reply
Hm... Now i read my comment. I ment to say decentralization, not centralization...
reply