bitcoin is designed to be Permission-less.
Luke has knots implementation - cool do your thing🤙🏽
Question: why is Luke and Mechanic trying to control how bitcoin core develop their code ?? 🤦🏽♂️
Discussion
You have to be trolling
How can you hand away your freedoms to configure your node and think the people who are standing up by offering an alternative are in the wrong.
Y’all feds or some shit ? Nostr just a bunch of Yes bros and Feds these days.
#fedboisummer
That's an exaggeration on your part. I think we're currently at a point where 95% of bitcoin users don't want to or can't technically understand the issue. they just listen to what their favorite influencers say - the whole issue is political at this point
Pretty sure Luke ran to the feds when his coins got stolen. So thinking he could be working with them never gives you pause?
You wanna go that route you could say core has been corrupted since your boi Gavin voluntarily went to the Feds and spooked Satoshi.
Why are you against node runners making their own configuration choices?
Maybe you liked to get pegged in the ass I don’t know but your logic is nonsensical
That is a non sequitur. Luke got social engineered and lost millions of dollars. He no longer has a financial motivation for bitcoins success.
He ran to the feds... They have a channel now.
Not impossible they didn't make a deal. Luke goes on their payroll, Luke gets the chance to get even with those who did him dirty. Feds splinter the Bitcoin movement like they do everytime. This is the playbook. The whole division runs on the twitter outrage algorithm. Knots resort to specious ramblings, appeals to base emotions, paranoia and fear. For someone who is so obsessed with the feds you have a big fat blind spot right in front of you.
I do support people's right to chose that's why I run an older version of core. Is switching protocols somehow going to magically solve human greed and incompetence?
Do you not know Gavin literally went to the feds to help them understand bitcoin better? How is that a non-sequitur, is Gavin not on the Core devs side?
This is all beside the point, the code matters not the people. And the Core code says I can't choose what transactions I relay, fuck that.
Maybe better defined as whataboutism than non sequitur. Still deflecting from topic.
The non sequitur is relating the dev to feds when the code is all that matters. That was the original deflection. Following the path of deflection was still nonsense because there is the same argument for both.
I don't follow the point you are making. Changes equals bad because ????
If those changes are the removal of choice then sure but they aren't so, what are you trying to say?
Also, I responded to this post as well, so you can read that as well.
You can run an old version of core with the choice still available to you. All implementations of core are backwards compatable. It seems safer than running something different with all sorts of potentially problematic changes and while declaring it does not matter that the individual advocating this drastic measure no longer has a financial motive for bitcoins success, a big old axe to grind and has opened a communication channel with the feds. But that's just my opinion the choice is yours.
Also it raises red flags when people say a project, that is working perfectly fine, is completely doomed unless I alone am allowed to fix it. And when pressed for specific answers I get rambling deflections. In other words knots has been saying Bitcoin is doomed unless we all switch to knots but when pressed for specifics on how Bitcoin will fail the argument falls flat. imho.
Footage of knots saving bitcoing
I don't say those things so, maybe just address concerns that I put forward. I would be a fan of Libbitcoin, if it actually worked (it doesn't). The point is all of the "changes" Luke makes are also toggles or fields that give users choice. I don't care if luke is a federal agent's prostitute if the code he writes gives me choice and it's open for audit. So, continually bringing up feds, spam prevention, and lost bitcoin is immaterial to the actual discussion. I DON'T CARE. The discussion is one group just updated the swiss army knife with 3 less screwdrivers and a different group added 5 more. I like more options not less. That's it.
My concern is that the toggle fields/choices are a distraction. And the real changes are under the radar so yes it matters the character as well as the motivations of those who write them. The old saying "sometimes the cure is worse than the disease" comes to mind. This is Bitcoin, there are no regulators we are on our own and I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet based on what I know. Don't trust verify right?
And from what my limited understanding tells me knots is selling their users a bill of goods.
Dude, just read the code. Tell me where Luke put the "GET EM FEDS!" variable. If he did, I would be right there with you. But I haven't found it and neither have you (or else you'd be citing code lines instead of making moralistic or equivocation arguments).
Stop assuming and look at the code it’s nearly identical and both have the same consensus rules.
You have been hood winked
Have you seen https://youtu.be/JLtmSzeLXOU ayhttps://youtu.be/dMvpRVHr8Lc ? 🧡
I mean, no I haven't but I know Mechanic and he generally makes different arguments than I do but we end up in the same place.
How is that not user choice?
Bitcoin core is making decisions that node runners do not agree with and forcing their decisions by removing the settings
That is Fed behavior that’s handcuffing the node runner to Bitcoin core’s ideology.
Talk about dodging questions.
There is only one question
Why did they remove the user settings?
For the record the only reason I switched to knots is because Core was going to and has since I switched, removed user settings.
I don’t give a fuck who wrote what the code base is 99% the same except with Knots I have more choice.
Bitcoin core is literally going down the same path ethereum went down.
When I first switch to Knots someone I know from Nostr who had run an ethereum validator in the past told me the same stuff you and JB have been saying. I asked him why he stopped running his validator and he said the storage got to big. I said thank you and thought the discussion was over. He still didn’t understand so explained to him like a 5 year old.
If the blockchain gets to big to fast no one will run it expect for Feds, Institutions, and spammers and Bitcoin will fully evolve into Bit Suit.
That’s what core is championing for a bloated blockchain covered with spam.
Core is aligned with Ethereum people like J Slopp.
In fact ethereum puts the “e” in Core.
Are you saying the reason core 30 is bad is because the amount of storage required to run a nodewill be too high?
How do you not get it?
Core needs a majority of node runners to relay their spam so they have good odds of being included in the next block. If nodes do not relay the spam it’s harder for them to gain inclusion.
Core 30 is only bad if everyone blindly runs it.
I honestly wouldn’t care but to me this is what state captured Bitcoin looks like.
This is a good hill to die on.
This is why they are so hostile and angry that people are standing up and walking away.
Don’t fall for their lies.
Send a message run knots
So is that a yes?
Are you reading a completely separate text then responding, or being obtuse? This is so weird. I have spoken with voice to a lot of these people and now it seems like people are reading from a sales script.
I want a sharp knife to cut my beef
-Do you worry about intruders because a knife wouldn't even stop them anyway!
No, I want to cut my food.
-You COULD cut your food with a spoon, do you really trust cutlery made by a guy who accidentally cut his thumb once!?
What the fuck is happening?
So is that a yes? I'm still confused ..
In a technical sense mempool allocations are strictly RAM. So storage has nothing to do with it. But, again this is a nonsense argument conflating two separate issues. Relaying transactions and relaying verified blocks. The node does both but one is protocol forced and the other is not. That is where the choice lies.
he said:
"When I first switch to Knots someone I know from Nostr who had run an ethereum validator in the past told me the same stuff you and JB have been saying. I asked him why he stopped running his validator and he said the storage got to big. I said thank you and thought the discussion was over. He still didn’t understand so explained to him like a 5 year old.
If the blockchain gets to big to fast no one will run it expect for Feds, Institutions, and spammers and Bitcoin will fully evolve into Bit Suit. "
So I don't think I'm conflating anything. I'm just responding to what was said. From reading this it sounds like disk space is the issue which is what I asked for clarification on and again it's sounding like a "yes".
He also said
"Core is aligned with Ethereum people like J Slopp."
Which is... Pretty funny honestly. And accurate.
I think I get it. Disk space is one large issue but the bigger picture is worrying that Bitcoin becomes ethereum. If that is the issue I'm not so worried about that either because ethers original sin was being premined, then it was the dao rollback demonstrating it's mutability and lack of centralization, and final nail in the coffin was proof of work. (And not to mention of course selling out to jp Morgan).
Bitcoin has none of that baggage and to think it's going to turn into eth overnight by removing an irrelevant field seems way overblown. I can name dozens more reasons why that would never happen but that would take all day. Imma touch some grass
I took that quote to mean, the proliferation of spam creates bloated UTXO sets which is a side point not to do with the issue of choice. The Ethereum connection, I too don't see that. I basically give ethereum the "I don't think of you at all" Don Draper meme out of 10.
The ultimate problem is that there was no hard cap (outside of blocksize) for the amount of arbitrary data carrier field. That is a massive flaw especially considering visual data of certain kinds is very illegal for those who even possess it making Bitcoin by extension illegal to host. Even outside of legality, I don't think most people would willingly host CSAM on their FINANCIAL node. Seems like a bad use of data.
I never said it would happen overnight I actually implied it would take decades by stating most node runners aren’t even born yet.
You haven’t looked at the code and are talking out your ass.
Also you are demonstrating that you haven’t spent enough time thinking about long term consequences.
Core is on offense and knots is on defense but core has been sacrificing their pieces and will have lost all their pawns by the end game and will ultimately lose.
in my opinion, that's the only really good reason! storage space because that's an architectural decision against the plebs
run knots or keep the old version of core.
there is no forced auto update removal of settings for existing core nodes.
You run a node knowing the block size is 4MB.
Knots is closer to Core v25 then Core v30 is.
Knots is more current and maintained why run an outdated version no devs are paying attention to?
Sorry, forgot to link the core reasoning for removing limit on new version:
Puzzle,
as u can see nothing is stopping people from running old versions of core, or knots
- bitcoin.clarkmoody.com
you can run core, knots, libbitcoin, libre relay 🤙🏽
mechanic and Luke want core users to choose knots ??
That’s control. they can jog on.
Core removed node runner ability to configure settings and swapped the defaults.
Hard fucking stop.
Everything else is irrelevant.
settings thats have zero effect…
Then why remove them?
Not adding up.
Core is like a fucking condo association
It’s a power grab that backfired
why remove code that has zero effect? Really? It’s called dead code, it’s a maintenance burden.
"Fr fr, dead code is like carrying around extra baggage, ya feel? 🤔 Why keep it if it ain't doing anything? What’s your take on cleaning up the codebase? #CodeCleanUp"
You don't know what you are talking about.
Oh cool did they remove the OP return field entirely? Because that's the only way they would be removing "dead code".
-Removing a max field length makes an error, so it's not that.
-Setting a default length means there is a way to set the field.
So what "Dead code" did they remove? OH RIGHT! The user's ability to modify fields that THEY set. Disingenuous argument.
This isn't some depricated color palette on some shitty purple nostr app, this is a field people are currently exploiting in Bitcoin. To say "dead code" means you are dumb or lying.
looks like an open source project that Luke uses for knots changes.
no bitcoin core, no knots.
Luke even counts core devs as “knots devs” lol
You can't run Libbitcoin btw... That shit doesn't work.