Thanks for the article, just finished it šš¼
I think nobody who decided to switch to Knots is happy that it is signed by a single person, we all recognized the risk, but they switched to knots despite it being run by a single developer.
I think the article is completely missing the point: of course there are huge risks associated with single-signer, we all know this, but the real question we should ask is āwhy so many people switched to knots even if it has this massive weakness?ā. This is the real question that core has not asked itself once. They have not stopped to question themselves that maybe they have done something wrong to push ppl towards knots.
Here is my personal reasoning for switching to knots: āoh my god core devs are saying shit like:
- btc is a database for whatever (and not mainly money)
- there is no such thing as spam since a paying tx is a valid tx (just say you donāt like it but tolerate it)
- I have not seen one thing done to fix the situation for nodes (stratum v2 has been developed and pushed by ocean, aka dashir)
- I read the mailing list and delving bitcoin all the time, and what I see is core being way more concerned about the miners than the nodes
- core devs seems to be have lost a bit themselves in hubris: I see arrogance and sense of importance that can only lead to miserable outcomes
- saying shit like āit is a technical matter and if you are not technical your opinion doesnāt countā is really a very not smart move to involve people in the process (so are we to blindly trust what the experts say? Doesnāt sound familiar?
Adding my new friend nostr:nprofile1qqsfp6eqxe8w5g7ryzm4q3mtxemjk56ghu5kp5xkh22pywd9wm9rz5qpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0rvnv32 to the discussion