pull down to refresh

115 sats \ 9 replies \ @_Bubble_2009 OP 16h \ parent \ on: Knots stop workin after two yr if you don't udate bitcoin
Ok, on the one hand it is correct to incentivize the user to abandon software that is no longer supported, but on the other hand, I see it as a sort of censorship.
Let's try to look at it from this point of view: many users are thinking of switching to Knots for everything that has happened around the issue OP_RETURN, let's say that all (or most of the community) switches to Knots, Let's say that in a year Luke decides to make an update that the community doesn't like, the user wouldn't even be free to continue to keep an old version active without having an annoying warning.
What do you think?
write
preview
50 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 7h
it is correct to incentivize the user to abandon software that is no longer supported
I think incentivize is wrong because the incentive should already be there in the form of bug fixes and new features. Rather, notify would be better: could just leave a warning / popup instead of literally messing around with consensus code.
It's not censorship though imho, it's immatellyouwhattodoship.
Here's your magic letmelivemylife.patch fwiw:
diff --git a/src/clientversion.cpp b/src/clientversion.cpp
index 6bf7ef6406..488d6abcb6 100644
--- a/src/clientversion.cpp
+++ b/src/clientversion.cpp
@@ -108,8 +108,5 @@ int64_t g_software_expiry{DEFAULT_SOFTWARE_EXPIRY};
 
 bool IsThisSoftwareExpired(int64_t nTime)
 {
-    if (g_software_expiry <= 0) {
-        return false;
-    }
-    return (nTime > g_software_expiry);
+    return false;
 }
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @_Bubble_2009 OP 5h
Make a PR ^_^
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 5h
Now that would be a waste of precious time!
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @_Bubble_2009 OP 5h
:(
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 4h
Besides this being an ad-hoc patch and not something you'd want to publish, all it's going to do is waste everyone's time because drama, and then it gets closed. If Luke wants to tell you what to do, my patch is not going to succeed in telling Luke to not tell people what to do, while also being kinda hypocritical - after all who am I to tell Luke what policy his software should have.
Let me ask you this though: if you had a node software that was written for full operator autonomy, with no nasty shit like this, full transparency in the development process and an open repo where people can freely argue... would you run that software? would you encourage others to run it? would you contribute to it?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @_Bubble_2009 OP 3h
People are switching to Knots to express their dissent about the behavior of Core Devs regarding OP_RETURN. I think it is possible and even correct to express to Luke the perplexity on this line of code. At the very least, ask for a precise explanation and see how he responds to the criticisms. Constructive criticism is always useful to everyone, moreover (I think) Luke will not delete comments as was done in the PR of Core, otherwise he will fall into dissent like Dev of Core.
view all 1 replies
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 16h
What do you think?
You lost me at "a warning is a sort of censorship." My opinion didn't change.
If you don't like it and really cared, it's literally a few lines of code you could patch out.
Don't be an entitled FOSS user.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @_Bubble_2009 OP 15h
A few lines of code, but getting your hands on it without adequate testing, leads to frightening risks. One of the biggest criticisms made of this decision to remove the OP_RETURN limit is the lack of testing on this implementation. Here we would be in the same solution.
reply