"Bitcoin Core typically has around 100ā200 active contributors per year, with dozens contributing regularly each month. Over the projectās lifetime, more than 800 individuals have contributed code to the Bitcoin Core repository"
If the above is close to reality then it is beyond me how those calling for decentralization of bitcoin support and use Bitcoin Knots that is maintained and worked on by 1 Developer!!!
Absolutely crazy and against all things bitcoin in my opinion š¤£
You didn't read my reply did you?
It is a very valid argument that what ever figure you put on the number of Core developers, you can add one to that for Knots, so if you say 200 devs, then Knots has 201.
If I take any code and add a couple of lines or change a few parameters and create my own version, I haven't written that app by myself, I have modified an app written by others by a small amount.
That argument sounds clever, but itās misleading.
Yes, Knots inherits nearly all of its codebase from Bitcoin Core ā but thatās exactly the point. The Core repo has hundreds of eyes on it, reviewing, testing, arguing, and reaching rough consensus on what goes in. Knots, on the other hand, introduces changes that bypass that process ā changes like filters, which do affect behavior, especially in the context of contentious features.
So if someone adds controversial filtering logic to Coreās codebase and publishes it as Knots, the number of people maintaining that fork doesnāt magically become āCore + 1ā : it becomes 1 maintainer making unilateral decisions on top of a collectively maintained base. Thatās a huge difference.
This isnāt about copy-pasting code ā itās about who decides what changes go in, and whether those changes are vetted by the broader dev ecosystem. If Knots introduces features that donāt exist in Core, and those features are maintained by a single person, then yes that feature has one maintainer. Thatās not a diss, itās a structural reality.
If someone wants to promote Knots, they should own that - not blur the lines with Core to boost its credibility.
It's neither clever or misleading, simply a true statement.
And yes, if I take some code which is built by a group of other people and make changes which I make public and other people support, then this is an extremely valid process.
Itās not the same. Bitcoin Core changes go through a rigorous review process, peer discussion, and community consensus. Bitcoin Knots is a forkāa personal project. Changes there donāt pass through Coreās checks. One dev forking and tweaking is not the same as 200+ devs maintaining the protocol that runs the majority of the network. Letās not confuse modification with contribution to consensus.
Word
by your logic voting and a parliament is decentralized.
you are still talking about one software, and one collective making changes on it.
something accepted or not without being tested by the market.
its not like100 devs all have their own alternative versions and experimenting with things in the market of node software in parallel.
its all one collective entity.
makes no sense.
I don't understand
amazon is not centralized because they have many workers?
is a government decentralized because it has parliament or people voting in it?
no that would be a crazy statement.
what is decentralized is multiple nations, experimenting with different laws in parallel.
or multiple companies competing in the free market in parallel.
or multiple bitcoin node implementations competing in the free market of node software, experimenting with different things, and live or die.
so yes some other node implementations, especially one that gives its bitcoin user more options, is decentralization.
one software implemented by one repo, can make changes to the protocol based on votes of few without competing in the market with other options is against everything bitcoin and decentralization.
monopoly over bitcoin software by a single collective is not decentralization.
š„±
FORKING ā DECENTRALIZATION.
Bitcoin Core has hundreds of contributors, public review, and global adoption.
Knots is maintained by one person with custom filters, calling that āmore decentralizedā just because itās different is misleading.
Decentralization means many users freely choosing between well-reviewed, consensus-respecting software -not one person pushing personal changes without broad support.
Core is dominant because itās trusted, not because itās forced.
Thatās decentralization in action.
