Knots broke 9% but its growth on the network seems to be slowing 
Discussion
Node count doesn’t measure economic weight
not by itself
but it has *some* relation
e.g. if node count for Knots was 0% that would also imply the economic weight of Knots users was 0%
If the node count was 100% that would also imply the economic weight of Knots users was 100%
Between those, the signal's meaning is murky, but even an imperfect signal is a signal
Murky indeed- your statement about the extremes is true of course but not very practical. It doesn’t tell us much about influence without some measure of connectivity/flow routed by the nodes. The number of Knots nodes could be higher than 80% and not make a difference if the economic weight of the 20% was a lot more (as it almost certainly is). These types of measures give people either false hope or a reason to get the pitchforks out… because it confuses how the network really works (and has ALWAYS worked) without additional context.
Thank you for providing this additional context
Of course. I’ve been trying to educate myself and others on the nuances recently:
nostr:nevent1qqspm55rdghxqtsyf9k40g3h8marv0e2e7uc5j7fgdjsqgecakdelwcpzmsmk
it does show that (imo) a meaningful percentage of network are unhappy with cores actions
even if doesn't have economic weight it signifys something
not disagreeing with your point on false hope just saying it signifies something
there's also not a good way to know how much economic weight the Knots users actually have
it's easy to assume something like "Well, major infrastructure providers haven't said they are switching to Knots, so all of these people must just be raspberry pi users LARPing as if they matter"
but (1) it's possible for someone major to switch without announcing it (2) it's possible that a lot of these Knots users run small businesses, and if so, that can quickly add up to a significant amount of economic weight
I don't think there's a good way to know but there's another factor to consider: the Knots people are running a couple thousand nodes, and even if they only represent 10% of the people upset with Core, that means tens of thousands of people are now part of a vocal minority.
If this minority proves to be persistent, people who *do* have economic weight will be economically incentivized to serve that community and advertise to them, and part of their messaging could be "Look, we're running Knots too! Support us by buying our shirts & hats & VPSs and whatnot!"
So even if the majority of these people *are* LARPers, and even if their hobby nodes are meaningless by themselves, it can result in people who do have economic weight joining that community for self-interested reasons -- and then suddenly there *is* economic weight in that community.
yeah hundred percent
it gives people who have a different opinion than the core devs assurance they're not alone. 'virtue signalling' is not the sledge some people think it is...
also tether ramping up mining with ocean, isn't the easiest way to use the datum thing to run knots? that will be interesting
True. I hope they learn how to actually make their voice matter (plug in ASIC, use the node, route lightning…)
A lot of sideliners still waiting the response from Core. If the PR actually gets merged, we may see another sudden spike in Knots adoption.
Looking through the comments section under nostr:nprofile1qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ukzcnvv5hx7un89uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet59usql2yl's recent videos I notice a lot of plebs saying this shitstorm has motivated them to finally start running a node or even ordered a Start9 device. A new crop of node runners was born out of this crisis. I think Bitcoin is in a better place now than compared to 2 years ago when no one paid any attention to the filters/spam discussion. I guess we need to thank Core for that.
Its bitcoin cores move now, tricky place to be!
I'd rather see more devs on Knots then node runners.
9% of node runners prefer a single-contributor downstream repo from core.
This is bad; the order of operations (if decentralized resilience is the fundamental goal) is going backwards, and the priority seems out of line.
Bitcoin Core may not be the worst vulnerability we should be focusing on today.
> 9% of node runners prefer a single-contributor
I wonder whose fault that is?
...media.
Noderunners may very well be sheep, scared from one shepherd to a new shepherd.
Some I think recognize the risk of Luke's personal history with tradeoffs & unintended consequences, and the dictatorial nature of the repo, and decide to find other paths than **that**
I welcome a change of knots' situation; I don't see it happening.
We really need a competitive alternative; knots right now is not it.
My feeling is that this will be good for Bitcoin. A moment some masks to fall down, a moment some eyes to be opened, a moment for more decentralization and diversification.
As always, don't trust, VERIFY. I run Bitcoin Knots 🤙