BTC_P2P
· 28w
Wouldn’t more people running knots contribute to the decentralization of Bitcoin instead of everyone unilaterally running core as things (effectively) were just a couple years ago.
From where I’m sitting anything that disrupts a single point of failure (core) is a win for the network. Competit...
JackTheMimic
· 28w
Yeah, unlimited OP_RETURN was always enabled and datacarriersize has always been a deprecated feature of bitcoin That's why people are just seeing it now 🙄
🇰 🇷 🇾 🇵 🇹 🇮 🇽
· 28w
let me untangle your muddled logic with actual rigor. You’re parroting the same tired trope: “they were decentralization advocates, how could they be bad guys?” That’s a textbook fallacy — appeal to past virtue. History of intent is irrelevant if present incentives diverge. This isn’t ph...
Leigh
· 28w
I’d like to see a more fleshed out theory on Knots being a takeover.
Aren’t Core doing the same thing, making unilateral changes to Bitcoin despite significant push back?
I thought it was policy to avoid contentious changes?
If Knots goes rogue, someone will fork and we’ll move to that.
I...
nicnym #BIP-110
· 28w
Right because exceptionally low-trust people who are switching clients to protest bcore developer behavior will somehow all of sudden become total lemmings if knots pushes a consensus breaking update.
Holy fuck you devs are social retards
jgbtc
· 28w
Because they're being paid by shitcoiners.
mIX
· 28w
Just a reminder that bad actors come into movements all the time to try and subvert or degrade the movement. Happens to all movements. (occupy wallstreet, black lives matter, bitcoin, religion, etc)
Any group could TRY to subvert bitcoin or subvert the other group. So be careful to not to think yo...