my view was that I wanted node operators to have more control over their mempool policy and I didn’t appreciate that a centralized group could and did change default policy across the majority of the network (assuming people upgrade their nodes). therefore, I was mentally in the Knots camp and even used Knots as my daily driver for some time.

however, pushing your software on the basis that it is preventing child porn in bitcoin is disingenuous, and pushing for a soft fork in this situation just doesn’t make any sense to me. There have been a few of these dishonest arguments from Luke/Mechanic/Ocean and that raise some pretty major red flags in my mind.

I’m all for more node implementations, I believe we need more diverse implementations to secure a healthy network for the future, however Knots does not seem trustworthy to me at this point. For now I’m running 29.0 and not upgrading or switching back to Knots.

this is my own opinion that is subject to change lol

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I could be wrong, but I think Knots is based on core with modifications to give more control. And still remains open source.

Despite the drama, I don't think Knots requires any trust.

Personally I am running a few nodes, some with knots, some with 29.

I’d rather just manually configure core 29.0 at this point. seems safer.

What would a soft fork look like?

"widely opposed by the Bitcoin developer community"

lol that's all I needed to hear to keep running knots :)

Thank you!

to each their own good sir