Des Imoto マキシ on nostr

have spoken about it at length, many times i hate the spam, but do not think we can stop it, bitcoin will be fine, nodes will be a bit more expensive to run node operators should have more options r...

Des Imoto マキシ @Des Imoto マキシ 1750609948

It’s not about the spam. IMHO, Bitcoin Core were too dominant, too close to the code and became corrupted. They went against consensus for no good reason. Next time, while many nodes may not paying attention, they could unilaterally push another code change that would reduce #bitcoin immutability even further. They are too close to the code. They are the biggest risk. While not ideal, I run Knots now.

3❤️4❤1

Comte de Sats Germain · 43w

I think ideally, we should aim to have several good options, with none having too much node-share. Maybe not more than 20%. Long term project, and first we have to win the current battle.

goatmeal · 43w

did you get that knots is just core with an insane man's nonsesnical tweaks added? that's like bragging about using mint instead of ubuntu but dumber https://blossom.primal.net/8bfeb5f42518c212255ca035484b8b65360b2adde0303f2515a81c72ecf32de4.png

McCoy · 43w

Maybe core wants alternative clients to take the spotlight off of them. They dont want to *take the lead* on filtering. Let the node runners have options. Opening up Op_Return is forcing the issue and now alternative clients will rise; node runners have more options/control. The anti dev thing is ...

R · 37w

They did not go against consensus. Rough consensus is an open software development process and has nothing to do with the opinions of all of us who are not contributors to the code. Knotts doesn’t even have a consensus process, it’s just the changes Luke wants to make to Core.