It’s exactly the same except for around 140 setting changes
Discussion
It has nowhere near the same software integrity process, however.
But its exactly the same 🤔
You’re still playing the wrong game.
Look at your opponent.
Look at who they work for.
Look at their goals.
Understand how this diversion helps those goals.
Assume you are less intelligent than you believe to be.
Assume the opposition are more intelligent than you believe them to be.
Play where the puck is heading, not where it is now.
Understand you are both on the same side.
Understand that you may, despite your own integrity checking, be compromised by your ambition.
Understand, ambition rarely has anything to do with money, other than as a unit of measure.
please explain how this could be true
Most people are vibe noding regardless. Having more eyes on the software IS a less risky vibe though. In my opinion.
Its a fork of Core with minor auditable open source changes.
Except changes aren't peer reviewed, so if auditing is occurring, it's not being done transparently.
and also... minor? last I looked there were hundreds of non-peer reviewed patches on top unless that changed.
Is just better to run an older version of core say V22.0.0?
Only if you enjoy running unpatched software vulnerabilities.
This does nothing for me if the peers reviewing Core decide to make bitcoin a decentralized database for storing shitcoin spam instead of a decentralized monetary protocol. All the peer review in the world means nothing if there are irreconcilable differences in the direction Core wants to take Bitcoin.
The "core" team are not pilots of the bitcoin ship.
They have no business making "executive decisions". When they do, they will be demoted by the only ones who matter, the hodlers.
Core's software "integrity" process is why I switched to Knots. Selling out to shitcoiners is your idea of integrity, not mine.
Vibes over engineering confirmed.
Spoken like a true shitcoiner.
Spoken like an ignorant shitcoiner who thinks they are holier than thou.
Who's vibing now? Go off, master engineer Lopp! Engineer me harder! 😂 Your actions speak for themselves. You are a proven shitcoiner while for me it's yet to be determined, just like anyone else who hasn't publicly shitcoined as you have. https://casa.io/ethereum
Yeah, nobody knows you. Congratulations 👏🏼
I'd rather be unknown than known for being a shitcoin scammer. We are clearly different in that way. Also, weird comment from an opsec expert such as yourself, assuming you're being sarcastic. I learned from your mistakes!
As a layman and in simple terms, how can you justify all the spam on the network? What good is it doing? What’s its purpose?
It’s consensus valid, so if miners want to include it, no one can stop it. You’re just getting bad fee estimates by running a node that ignores it.
If you think spam will outcompete the monetary usage of bitcoin in the long run, then you either don’t understand bitcoin or don’t believe in its basic value proposition.
That’s why I run Core.
silence engineer the social media vibers are talking
Ah yes, here is the "integrity" Lopp was referring to.
to be clear I could care less what software you run, if you want to risk not seeing the correct balance, thats a you problem not mine.
I'd rather run core but it's been taken in a direction I won't go. Denegrate me as a "social media viber" all you want I don't care, I'll run the software that best aligns with my ideology. I'm curious, is there any change to core that would be going too far for you? Or are the experts to never be questioned? There is more to bitcoin than just pure engineering concerns. The fact that many core devs are blind to this is a serious problem.
you can do whatever you want man, i just personally like to base my decisions off deep consideration and understanding the problems at hand instead of virtue signalling after being manipulated by social media campaigns, but to each their own.
core vs knots social media beef aside: don't you believe that there should be more than one usable implementation of full node software?
I think it’s fine and can sometimes reveal bugs in the main client. but i think it would be risky if lots of different clients became heavily used in the economy. subtle bugs could be really bad.
We see this on nostr all the time. Any small implementation detail can lead to horrible incompatibilities. That would suck with your money.
That would definitely suck. Just hurts to see development go on and then have people say "it's too complicated to get parity with core" (fresh codebase, not a fork). Like even rust-bitcoin does a bunch of stuff different than core still due to complexities IIRC, which is, of course, a WIP but still not nice to know.
welcomed decentralization side effects...
Give me a break, who am I virtue signalling for, the 3 people who will read this? I too like to base decisions off deep consideration and understanding. I've been waiting for either from core devs and have yet to see it. Instead it's always conceipt, contempt, and hubris (on full display from you and Lopp today). If I've been persuaded more by team knots (or manipulated as you call it), that's because core has done a horrible job of selling this. Granted, it's pretty hard to sell a turd.
What exactly is the consensus review process that checks the integrity(no bugs that could introduce a security flaw) of the new code when Luke wants to change something?