@Michoe
👀
Relays (3)
- wss://nos.lol/ – read & write
- wss://nostr.bitcoiner.social/ – write
- wss://nostr.mom/ – write
Recent Notes
just keep running bitcoin core 28 imo. neither camp is completely clean here. both the knots crowd and the core crowd are doing things i do not agree with. this one is going to take a while to figure ...
They are allways talking about them jews in WWII, but those germans weren't exacte saints either then.
> Where is the evidence of the goal to reorg thousands of transactions? Who said this?
it is how the fork is designed and how luke talks about it
That's bs. CAT does that not BIP110.
❤️2
While true, irrelevant. The risk of a chain split is not zero. The risk of csam on the chain is also not zero. The question is which is the bigger risk. I can see arguments for both.
It is relevant. Core created this problem. If they reverse their OP_RETURN policy, things will cool down. It's up to them.
❤️1
since bip110 has nowhere near consensus it will result in a chain split when they activate
the main chain will have blocks mined significantly faster than the bip110 chain
if miners switch to bip110...
Core started this! with their reckless OP_RETURN policy. This is on core.
2❤️12🚀1
Anyone here wen BIP110?
Why any proposed mechanism for miners to stop "illegal content" in OP_RETURNs just won't work. Here's my bitcoin stackexchange answer:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/127973/1235
Filters don't work 100%. We al know that, but that doesn't mean to get rid of them. First of all they work for most cases and second of all they give you plausible deniability if illegal spam gets through. Doing nothing is saying your CSAM is welcome on the blockchain uncoded.
1❤️2❤️1🥰1
his merges don't have anything to do with knots code? what? he has tons of unreviewed and unsigned code hosted on a server that has been compromised
Yeah, but if core start willingly releasing code with bugs, you have to look for an alternative. Knots or don't upgrade.
I don't like to play it on the person. I don't care if the maintainer is a catolic with a beard or some meme-chick.
I don't like to play it on the person. I don't care if the maintainer is a catolic with a beard or some meme-chick.
did you read the article? it shows his dubious code and security practices
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the code of Knots.
While in Core30, there is a bug where transactions with multiple op_returns will not be seen as 'non-standard' anymore after the change. As described in this PR.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406/files
Why core is not adressing that is beyond me. They just pushing it through...
While in Core30, there is a bug where transactions with multiple op_returns will not be seen as 'non-standard' anymore after the change. As described in this PR.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406/files
Why core is not adressing that is beyond me. They just pushing it through...
1
Are you considering running a Bitcoin Knots node? It's certainly your right to do so.
But you should be informed of what you're getting into.
https://blog.lopp.net/knot-a-serious-project/
If Core implemented a spam filter, Knots wouldn't be so populair.
❤️14🔥1🤘1
#memes #memestr
https://i.nostr.build/6ahe2wYzHbLDlDLS.jpg
And then get pand for it. That's the point.
1