And for reference Odells note about only one signature was at 2025-10-13T13:28:25Z and 30 minutes later 2025-10-13T13:57:16Z the signature file is updated on github with 2 more signatures.
Discussion
The 2nd signature was created 2 days ago. Not sure when it was added to the GitHub release.
https://github.com/bitcoinknots/guix.sigs/tree/knots/29.2.knots20251010
Yes. I am just correcting my criticism. Odell does in fact know how to read a text file 😂. The file was swapped out after he checked it.
👍 nice everyone shake hands.
nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyvhwumn8ghj7um9dejxjapwdehhxenvv9ex2tnrdaksepv2a6 come up with a better reason why you don’t like knots
Looking forward to a 3rd implementation, I hate core more than I love knots.
Not that anyone cares about my opinion, but I think the reason for the lack of consensus with core vs knots is became everyone is arguing over tradeoffs.
It's a tradeoff between decentralization and censorship resistance.
We can't have 100% of both. There is a dial in between and where should we set that dial.
I don’t agree with that framing, filtering out a certain class of txns (spam) isn’t censorship.
Censorship is filtering out individual txns based on individual characteristics.
Filters have been around forever, they’ve been working just fine.
The busy body dumbfucks at core should have left things alone. If they wanted to tinker with fun little open source projects they should have found something else and left my money alone.
Filtering out a certain class of transactions isn't censorship (agreed), but it does resemble ad blocker behavior which is a form of centralization. In ad blockers, they all query a centralized list, or have trended to do so. Gov can put pressure on anything that is centralized. Yes filters work. That's the problem and solution unfortunately. Hence tradeoff between censorship resistance and decentralization.