Damus
TallBrian · 23w
I don’t have the skills to do a proper analysis on Core v. Knots. The arguments on both side are compelling but the Knots side feels more genuine and Core comes off as a bit elitist. Doesn’t mean ...
ODELL profile picture
i do not feel comfortable telling people to run knots until it has better review and release processes in place

if you do not want to relay larger op return transactions then run core v29 (the most recent version of core) and do not update to v30 when it is released

alternatively you can run v30 with a modified config file

i think luke, mechanic, and most core contributors mean well and care about bitcoin

long term i want to see more well reviewed bitcoin implementations exist, more choices for node operators is strictly better, this is one of the reasons i have donated my time to build out opensats

i think this ‘debate’ has mostly devolved into social attacks and is mostly unproductive

i do not think it matters much for the global bitcoin network which client you run, in this specific situation

i have said much on this topic in the past, use the search feature if you are curious
1418❤️50🤙8❤️2:OK:11🔥1
roscoclyde · 23w
I’ve been curious your opinion on the matter. Thank you. 🤝
Eric FJ 🪬⚡️ · 23w
This is lucid
bitcoinpoorguy 比特幣傢伙 · 23w
Fair enough 🫡
scrolls of ancient wisdom · 23w
This is opinion is natural to slightly biased to core. The reason why people are running knots even without the best review is because we feel offended and betrayed.
Joseph Hurtado - Founder Granata Consulting · 23w
Who reviews core? Knots is a minor fork of Core.
dagwood · 23w
Cooler heads prevail. Best "NOT TWITTER" explanation I have seen.
SatsAndSports · 23w
The code for the consensus rules should be in a separate library, and that library should be used by all implementations I'm usually all for having a variety of open implementations, but we need to avoid an y chance of a hard fork that is accidentally introduced via an accidental change in consensu...
Winston · 23w
Well said. The voice of reason.
marksn · 23w
a 💯 . right now it’s a distraction imho
Affinity**For*Disobedience · 23w
nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqnz0fd0 could you be more specific regarding what a "better review and release process" looks like? Or at least what it definitely doesn't look like. H...
Technician · 23w
What review and release process would you consider sufficient to recommend Knots or any other implementation?
Cobweb · 23w
This only works in the short term. Eventually you will need the security patches for Core 30, 31, 32, 33... They're going to force this eventually. Staying on v29 is a short term solution. We I do agree we need Knots to grow in its governance to be a true competitor to Core.
Skanderbeg · 23w
Or just update to v30 and change the datacarrier limit. Keeps OP_RETURN limits as is.
BitcoinSandy · 23w
Wen taproot ? Or am i late ? That’s about where I am 😂
pedro · 23w
you're talking about long term, but do you think core 30 may cause a short/mid term problem though? we have a precedent with what happened on bsv, when they raised op return to 100kb and i don't understand yet why this huge risk is being taken so lightly. "just don't update your node" won't be helpf...
Force2B · 23w
Good call
Branca · 23w
All it takes is one miner not using OP_RETURN filters for all nodes, including yours, to store illicit material. This is the only argument they should refute or substantiate much better. At this point, and given what's happening, I think influential people are definitely compromised.