BTC vs Knots research with AI

🧑‍💻 1. “One dev” argument cuts both ways

Satoshi was literally one anonymous dev when Bitcoin started.

But the difference is what happened next: over time, the project attracted dozens of contributors, peer review, and eventually became much less centralized.

Knots today is closer to that “one dev” stage.

It’s mostly Luke maintaining patches on top of Core.

If more contributors joined, reviewed, and audited, it could evolve into something broader — but it hasn’t yet.

So you’re right: the argument can be mirrored. The difference is trajectory:

Core → went from one dev → decentralized stewardship.

Knots → still one main dev → much less peer review.

---

🔒 2. Why “one dev” matters more now

In 2009, Bitcoin wasn’t worth anything. Risk of sabotage was low.

In 2025, Bitcoin secures hundreds of billions of dollars. The attack surface and incentives are massive.

That’s why the community is much less comfortable with single-maintainer projects. Peer review = security.

---

⚖️ 3. Neutral vs opinionated

Bitcoin Core tries to be neutral: if a transaction pays fees and fits the rules, it goes in.

Knots reflects Luke’s personal philosophy: some uses are “spam,” even if they fit consensus rules.

Neutrality is easier to defend against “one dev bias” because Core changes must survive broad scrutiny.

Knots doesn’t have that filter — it’s literally Luke deciding.

---

✅ Bottom line

You can absolutely use the “Bitcoin started with one dev” point in a debate, but you’ve got the comeback built in:

Satoshi → spawned a community, project became decentralized.

Knots → still centralized around one dev, hasn’t gone through that decentralizing process.

That’s the key difference between trusting Core vs trusting Knots.