Allegedly, 19% of the bitcoin network is now running knots
However, I think I have detected evidence of a sybil attack designed to inflate the number of Knots users
I have annoted part of the "historical nodes" chart available at http://coin.dance/nodes/all
Based on this, I suspect the *real* percentage of Knots usage (subtracting probably sybils) is about 12.3% of the total network -- ~2,710 nodes out of 21,950 nodes.
Still a big deal, but not as big as the current numbers seem to suggest
Thank you Super Testnet
This isn't proof. If there were IP addresses it would help determine if they were all cloned at data centres farms.
I have better proof. A lot of new people have started running nodes because of this situation. If you listen or read the comments on Bitcoin University and This week in Bitcoin (for example) you'll see a huge amount of new users every week.
I believe there are new node runners due to this drama. I think I have talked to some of them and I think their existence is good for bitcoin. But I don't think there are so many of them as to account for the spike we see in the charts. The same dynamics that produce more Knots users ought to produce fewer Core users, and we saw that early on, but since June it has largely stopped. The pattern on the charts can be *partly* attributed to new users choosing Knots, and I think that is great, but I think most of it it is likely attributable to someone spinning up fake Knots nodes without the ability to make the Core node count fall.
There is certainly a mix of both. I've seen knots supporters encouraging people to spin up cloud based knots nodes as well as newcomers spinning up Start9 personal nodes
What about the chances that people who weren't previously running nodes decided to get online and run knots? I don't currently run a node, but the ongoing debate did cause me to consider doing so when I otherwise wouldn't have.
Using tbis logic, it seems equally likely core be could be using sybils, just to stay flat.
My 2 sats is that both are probably using sybils roughly proportional to implementation share.
If you think that a node runner is willingly want to relay csam instead of turning into knots and the numbers are fake, maybe you need to think twice my friend.
Just say you support core & CSAM.
I support Core and Knots. I do not know what CSAM is.
While I have long suspected this, as it's easy to fire up fake nodes, I don't see any such evidence here
It could be that this pseudo-war is causing people to start running Knots nodes that never previously ran any nodes
Unless I've missed something in your data or logic?
It *could* be, yes. But the attention this drama is getting, combined with my own anecdotal experience of a roughly 60/40 divide in favor of Core, suggests to me that if the spike in total node count was entirely organic, we would see an increase in both Core and Knots users.
But that's not what we see -- there is a very notable spike in node count since June 2025 and it is entirely due to new Knots users, or a sybil, or, more likely, both. So I do not assert that the growth is 100% due to a sybil, but even if only *some* of it is due to a sybil, then there *is* a sybil attack happening, which is precisely what my post is about.
I don't disagree, but just to be Devil's Advocate: 馃槉
When you say 60/40 in favour of Core, that's just measured among noisy people who are online too much (like me!)
And maybe the 60% were already running nodes, while the 40% weren't, explaining why we get new Knots nodes without any change in the number of Core nodes
(I'm a bit of an exception to the pattern I'm describing here, but this isn't about me 馃槉)
Yes, my personal social circle is basically a Core-supportive bubble
But that bubble has a huge impact on new users -- it's very evangelical about bitcoin
Knots people are like that too
I know at least one psychopath who has installed a couple of more nodes in his mother-in-law and brother's house.
try not to talk about yourself in the third person, it is bad manners ;)
Why would someone sybil attack when it's fairly easy to spot, other than to undermine knots legitimacy?
you have yourself identified a plausible explanation
an enemy of Knots might sybil Knots in order to make the node count numbers less reliable
a friend of Knots might do it to make the numbers look bigger, to spark a kind of bandwagon effect
Possible, but I鈥檇 like harder evidence than merely a correlation to total node count. I鈥檝e seen and even got messages from people saying they are finally spinning up their first node. It could be possible that people are actually feeling pressured to do so.
That wouldn鈥檛 be unprecedented either, as we know when contentious issues arise, node counts tend to rise as well. Both due to likely Sybil, but also because people who care feel like they need to stake their claim on what path they support and don鈥檛 want to feel like passive observers.
Interesting either way. Appreciate the update.
This is really interesting data and possibly explains most of the recent gap up in knots usage
If I recall right, PortlandHODL was bragging about running 96 Core nodes back when he was laughing in that now-famous space where he DDoSed Knots nodes over Comsat. Have you considered that? Maybe the reason Core鈥檚 node count didn鈥檛 dip is because a bunch of spam apologists are propping it up with their own Sybil attack.
I did consider that. If Core fans were spinning up nodes in response to an ongoing decline in organic users, I suspect it would appear as jerky waves, a sort of sawtooth pattern. But in fact Core's usage line became flat after the initial wave of dropouts, while Knots kept rising; that seems like a weird, inorganic pattern.
Judging by written testimonials I see everywhere, a lot of people that never ran nodes are running Knots now. The net sales of companies like Start9 also suggest that to be true.
Well this whole drama is making me finally pull my finger out and spin up a node. Just because it's not existing core users changing over to knots does not make them illegitimate. Running my own node was already an intention well before the drama, so I'm not solely motivated by this issue, however it is definitely a catalyst for doing it now.
I like you man but I don't like this post because:
1) there is no evidence here, there is a big assumption on your part that is not possible that so many knots nodes have popped up (which has been proven wrong by the start9 X post). They have man and it's not hard to believe, lot's of ppl really did not like this change and got off their asses to run a knots node
2) this post seems like an attempt to make the "knots sentiment" look smaller than what it actually is. Why? To me sounds something like "no but look, it is not true that 20% of the network disagrees, it actually is just 12%). I don't see any good reason to recur to this
On the other hand, to show you I try to stay as objective as possible, I don't like the fact that knots people have come up with the csam narrative only 3 days ago (why only now, and not mention it at the very beginning of all this debate in May?). Instinctively sounds like a way to "play some last dirty card" to apply as much pressure as possible in this last month before core 30 is shipped
peace and love
don't forget that as soon as I learned of Start9's sales numbers I reposted it for further visibility: nostr:nevent1qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hsqgzthpz6s9pu0ld6mmhsc0uc5yhpql35yvx9msgxew7qlwj66gawhcjpfqmd
I still think it's strange that, of the new nodes on the network since June, nearly 100% of them are Knots nodes, and I think that is unlikely to be organic. But even though I hold it unlikely, I do not think a person would be unreasonable if they held the contrary view, and this is largely due to this new evidence from Start9. Namely, I do not think it is unreasonable to hold that Knots evangelists (I count myself in that number) have simply been very effective and that explains the strangely one-sided growth numbers.
> this post seems like an attempt to make the "knots sentiment" look smaller than it actually is. Why?
Because I think the truth is more important than the narrative. If the truth is that the numbers are somewhat inflated due to sybils, then the Knots sentiment is, in fact, smaller than the standard figures suggest. Why share that? Because it is true and relevant information.
There are good reasons to run Knots; the bandwagon effect is not one of them, so if someone is trying to inflate the numbers to induce a bandwagon effect, I want to oppose that effort.
