Replying to Avatar CitizenPedro

I don't have a particularly strong position on the OP_RETURN, Core vs Knots thing but I'm not a fan at all of top-down anything.

The free-market should be bottom-up and voluntaryist by nature. Every interaction in a real free market has to voluntary. This means options. Freedom of choice basically.

I think this form of thinking (censoring choices) is a slippery slope.

In other words, why not just let the nodes that want to save that info, save that info and then provide services on top of that? And others who don't, leave them alone?

Are you really telling me you need to censor a 1/3 of Bitcoin for your better alternative to work?

And I know Peter Todd is not advocating for this here, he's just saying "how easy it would be".

What am I missing here?

#bitcoin #discussion #asknostr #opreturn
Avatar
Nice and Kind Vic 6mo ago 💬 2

When you peer with another node, there's an implicit agreement that you benefit each other by relaying blocks and transactions. If one side is not sending transactions to you, then it's a leech offering no benefit. If you get surrounded by these types of nodes, then you won't see transactions you need to be aware of. Knots performs ingress filtering and does not pass all valid transactions on to its peers

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
CitizenPedro 6mo ago

Totally fair to disconnect from whoever you want, that’s your node, your call. I’ve got no problem with that.

What I find a bit off is the idea of auto-banning all Knots nodes just because of the default settings. Not all of them censor, some actually relay everything, right?

Isn't there a smarter way to do this?

cd
WaffleWater 6mo ago

As independent node runner who wants to store as much non financial arbitrary spam data on my computer as possible I can see how frustrating knots could be to someone.