No wonder it's all kicking off again, last time I checked Knots was on 10%
Discussion
Yep. They’re tricking a lot of nontechnical people into thinking they’re “preventing spam.”
Please educate me, as a non-technical person
Knots is Bitcoin node software that lets the user avoid relaying transactions that contain arbitrary data. The intention is to keep Bitcoin free of spam so that it can only be used for monetary transactions.
The problem is that people want to store data on chain and miners want to collect the transaction fees for that data. So even if 99% of the network runs Knots nodes, people can simply submit their data transactions directly to miners, and they get into a block (see MARA Slipstream).
The Knots crowd believes data storage is an existential threat to Bitcoin because it will outbid monetary usage. This fear is, bizarrely, a tacit admission that Bitcoin’s most market-valuable use case is as something other than money.
Thanks. So if people who want to put arbitrary data in the chain can submit directly to miners, why was knots made at all in opposition to this, and why do people run it? Why don't the actors subvert knots nodes and submit to miners right now as a matter of course, making the whole existence of knots meaningless?
There are miners who run Knots and mine blocks with little or no arbitrary data storage. It’s a small minority though. If enough miners did the same, it would make it more expensive to store data on chain. There’s not much point in running a non-mining Knots node, except to show support I suppose.
To your second question, it depends on the type of transaction. You don’t even need to submit directly to miners for inscriptions, because Bitcoin Core nodes (83% of the network) relay those transactions. To subvert Core AND Knots, you can go directly to miners. They will mine non-standard transactions like large OP_RETURNs. Even Core doesn’t relay them, but they are consensus valid.
The controversy with Core 30 is that it will start relaying large OP_RETURNs by default, precisely because the filter is trivial to subvert.
Thank you. I don't mean to bother you about this, im just genuinely trying to understand, since I recently started running a node (which I don't believe is mining.. im not sure if most nodes are miners). You can feel free to ignore this reply...
But what about if 80% of nodes are running knots (a conservative version of your hypothetical scenario)? Are you saying that it wouldn't matter no matter how many Knots nodes there are, or just that it doesn't matter at this point in time? Why would people not go to miners right now? Because it's more expensive than being done through a node?
You're not mining unless you bought special hardware for it. Core and Knots don't even give you the option to mine anymore because it's so inefficient with a regular CPU/GPU.
It's hard to say. If 80% of nodes were Knots, it would be harder for data transactions to propagate. But if there's enough market demand for those transactions, wallets could prioritize sending them to the 20% of non-Knots nodes, so they'd still easily get to a miner.
As far as submitting directly to a miner, the only pool I know that offers the service is https://slipstream.mara.com/ and yes, it is currently about 2x as costly as current mempool fee rates.
Okay, so it seems like it doesn't have a real effect at the moment because of comparatively low adoption numbers. But, if it did have large adoption numbers then it would make it harder for people who want to put arbitrary data on the chain to find a party to do that and it would potentially be more expensive? As I was reading the thought came to my mind " if not cannot prevent spam to any extent, then why would people run it, and what is the opposition to it?". I also don't understand the motivation for the core changes, which sounds like it makes it possible to put more arbitrary data on the chain for the same cost, effectively making arbitrary data cheaper per unit or whatever. Do core node Runners make money based on the amount of arbitrary data put in a block?
All valid transactions paying the mining fee will end up in the block regardless, what difference does it make what your personal mempool contains?
It makes no difference, except your node will make poor fee estimates because it has no idea what’s going on in other mempools.
LOL, nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk gave me a 👎 reaction to this reply.
nostr:note1jwrxv2js4zeys65xcufmrrf078vse206faf2r8fz9jm8wwt36avqpxfeel
Forwarding strings run by an overwhelming majority of the propagating network have a substantial difference on what gets into blocks and add a reasonable marginal cost. This is why like 99.9% of OP_RETURNs over the past decade have adhered to the network forwarding settings… because they work.
None of this suggests you can’t get around them. You can get around a fence, you can run a hash cash stamp and still send spam emails, you can get around all sorts of “filters” that are used at this layer of operation in any network or environment we could use as an example. Almost by their nature barriers are usually just a matter of cost.
But a small barrier that lets honest transactions through, and that would catch the majority of spam, allowing normal activity to deal with X in costs, while spam has to deal with X + 20% (or whatever) in time, alternative software, fees, whatever, then that’s a proper and meaningful balance to disincentivize the activity. And we have a very long period of bitcoin history to show this very thing, and that simply continuing to make small
Adjustments to ongoing spam evolution will continue to diminish its impact.
I'm bullish on it and I run core right now. I want more node software options, and developers are unlikely to be attracted to alternatives that have few users. I'm hoping more will work on it after seeing it has users.
Check out #libbitcoin
