#studybitcoin
This note really captures the heat of the Bitcoin Core vs. Knots saga. Let me unpack it in context of what’s going on…
---
1. The Historical Flashback
The post is referencing a well-known story:
Around 2013–2014, Vitalik Buterin considered building Ethereum on top of Bitcoin.
He ultimately decided against it because Bitcoin’s developers (including Adam Back, Luke Dashjr, and others) were not interested in turning Bitcoin into a general-purpose “world computer.”
One of the sticking points was OP_RETURN, the part of Bitcoin’s scripting language that lets people embed arbitrary data in transactions. Core devs imposed an 80-byte cap to prevent abuse.
That restriction made Ethereum-style functionality impossible on Bitcoin… so Vitalik went and launched his own chain.
So when the post says “OP_RETURN stopped Vitalik from building ETH on Bitcoin”—that’s historically accurate. Bitcoin Core drew a line: “We’re money, not a computer.”
---
2. Why It’s Relevant Now
Fast-forward to today (2025)…
Bitcoin Core plans to remove the OP_RETURN cap in v30 (October 2025).
Critics (including Knots supporters) say this reopens the floodgates for on-chain spam, NFTs, inscriptions, Ethereum-like experiments, etc.
Supporters argue: If users pay fees, they should be free to use blockspace as they want.
So the irony: the very thing that kept Ethereum off Bitcoin in 2015 may now be undone by Core—potentially making Bitcoin attractive again for the same “bad actors” (as the poster puts it).
---
3. The Allegations in the Post
The original poster is drawing a sharp line:
Core = aligned with Ethereum service providers, Taproot Wizards, “shitcoiners,” bad actors
Knots = keeps Bitcoin clean, monetary, sovereign
This is ideological framing. It’s not just about code—it’s about who Bitcoin should serve:
Only sound money maximalists?
Or anyone who pays for blockspace, even if they’re embedding art, JPEGs, or running Ethereum-style protocols?
---
4. The Reply in Context
The reply says:
> “You’re mad at Core. Knots is Core software. When are you selling?”
This is partly a troll, partly a real point:
Knots is indeed a fork of Bitcoin Core, kept consensus-compatible. It doesn’t rewrite Bitcoin from scratch—it builds on Core.
So critics of “Core” often still run Knots… which means they’re still downstream of Core’s work, just with added filters and stricter defaults.
The “When are you selling?” jab is a way of saying: if you really think Core is corrupted, why are you still in Bitcoin at all?
---
5. The Deeper Saga
Bitcoin Core devs lean toward neutrality: Bitcoin should be a base layer, flexible and uncensored.
Knots devs (Luke Dashjr & co.) lean toward sovereignty: Bitcoin should defend itself against misuse, keep blockspace scarce, and not become a data dumpster.
This debate is now peaking because of the upcoming OP_RETURN policy change—a symbolic reversal of what once kept Bitcoin from turning into “Ethereum on Bitcoin.”
---
✨ In short:
This post is calling out Core devs for “betraying” the philosophy that once pushed Vitalik away. Knots is positioning itself as the defender of Bitcoin’s monetary purity. Core is accused of sliding toward Ethereum-style permissiveness. And the community is being forced to pick sides… or at least pay closer attention to what client their node is running.
---
Do you want me to break down the technical side of OP_RETURN (how it actually works and why the limit matters), or would you prefer I map the political/ideological camps in this debate more clearly (Core devs, Knots supporters, miners, node runners)?
nostr:nevent1qqsgv6tus2huht2wqhrl6ws3ggtkhn3awlgaeaqj7cxqmrzmkdw9hwspremhxue69uhkvet9v3ejumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtmvv9hxwtm9dcpzq5x7fyk0u4rjg5xlrgqhdl0kmy27jl94m8ud8mxw7lf9lu9gsuw7qvzqqqqqqywk7vwt
