You didn't read my reply did you?
It is a very valid argument that what ever figure you put on the number of Core developers, you can add one to that for Knots, so if you say 200 devs, then Knots has 201.
If I take any code and add a couple of lines or change a few parameters and create my own version, I haven't written that app by myself, I have modified an app written by others by a small amount.
That argument sounds clever, but it’s misleading.
Yes, Knots inherits nearly all of its codebase from Bitcoin Core — but that’s exactly the point. The Core repo has hundreds of eyes on it, reviewing, testing, arguing, and reaching rough consensus on what goes in. Knots, on the other hand, introduces changes that bypass that process — changes like filters, which do affect behavior, especially in the context of contentious features.
So if someone adds controversial filtering logic to Core’s codebase and publishes it as Knots, the number of people maintaining that fork doesn’t magically become “Core + 1” : it becomes 1 maintainer making unilateral decisions on top of a collectively maintained base. That’s a huge difference.
This isn’t about copy-pasting code — it’s about who decides what changes go in, and whether those changes are vetted by the broader dev ecosystem. If Knots introduces features that don’t exist in Core, and those features are maintained by a single person, then yes that feature has one maintainer. That’s not a diss, it’s a structural reality.
If someone wants to promote Knots, they should own that - not blur the lines with Core to boost its credibility.
It's neither clever or misleading, simply a true statement.
And yes, if I take some code which is built by a group of other people and make changes which I make public and other people support, then this is an extremely valid process.
It’s not the same. Bitcoin Core changes go through a rigorous review process, peer discussion, and community consensus. Bitcoin Knots is a fork—a personal project. Changes there don’t pass through Core’s checks. One dev forking and tweaking is not the same as 200+ devs maintaining the protocol that runs the majority of the network. Let’s not confuse modification with contribution to consensus.
Word
It baffles me there are people that want any sizable portion of the bitcoin network running on knots. It isn't just about code review either. Knots has one dev/maintainer. This means you could potentially have one single dev with the ability to push out a code change that people running knots will blindly install upon new release.
Imagine if 50%+ of the bitcoin network were running Knots with one person having the ability to maintain the code of all those nodes. That is a scary proposition and it is insane to me that there are bitcoiners promoting that idea.
Imagine a backdoor in all those nodes or a breaking code change. Yes, many would catch the change and not push said new release to their nodes, but many would. Yes, it would very quickly become breaking news for all to urgently hear in the community. But that's not the point. That's not how you maintain the codebase for a multi-trillion dollar monetary network. You don't have one maintainer for a critical codebase like this.
It isn't one person "standing on the backs of giants." It is one person with control.
nostr:nevent1qqsy7r5m2g58pyp9w2u2xxe5faka8sja076uegadp4w6jka8h4tdmackt9uxv
