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.