saw a comment on twitter can’t remember who but they were saying if you take bitcoin seriously you shouldn’t run your node on umbrel. honestly that’s such a sick mindset. we should be encouraging ppl to run any node, not gatekeeping based on some hardcore setup. umbrel (or similar platforms) lower the barrier and make self sovereignty more accessible.

we need more people running nodes, period. not fewer. shaming someone for how they do it just pushes them away. you don’t build a strong network by flexing your configs, you build it by helping others opt in.

it’s also a great thing ppl are finally questioning bitcoin core’s monopoly. over 90% of nodes run core. that’s not healthy. too much of anything in one place makes the whole system fragile. if we care about making bitcoin more resilient and future proof, we need more implementations and balance.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Yup

Competition drives innovation and improvements

The node that runs on Umbrel is Bitcoin Core... lol

Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots, both available.

Isn't bitcoin core by the bitcoin dev team?/ why would I want to run anything else?

It doesn't have a monopoly though, never did. It just has a little bit too much of a say now and the market is responding accordingly. Natural monopolies don't exist, and I think we are in the midst of witnessing yet another confirmation of that.

Nah. Running a node in any form is great. People will have preferences on which setup they like best. Denigrating people for not having the most cypherpunk setup possible is counterproductive.

Node FUD - the best😂

The whole reason the blocks are small is so someone with the cheapest laptop & a stable connection can participate in the chain.

This is the chain of the ppl. Bring all your low powered devices.

Agree. Getting people comfortable with self custody, and the tools used to manage that effectively, is paramount.

In a world where any particular version of code becomes problematic, it can be addressed at that point. It may be harder to get more people to switch, but conversely ten users who are 100% of the footprint is worse.

On the fragility point, oddly, ETH had issues where two versions of the code became incompatible ( if I recall correctly ) and the chain split.

There is nuance in fragility, I think.

Amen to that Unfortunately it's the problem of super technical nerds. There is a tendency to denigrate those who are learning and those who know less. It is the arrogance of all the nerds of the bitcoin world that are increasingly driving away people who know nothing about computer science and are studying hard to start becoming a sovereign individual. Then they complain if people don't spend ₿ but keep them as a store of value. There should be many more people who teach the basics to those who know less but want to learn

nevent1qqsdhk240juw34q79p7wxywu0n7008g8mfvlmvp8r9t9nqnlz0xnr7gpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgs60r9h

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good?

Why should we trust anything but bitcoin core?

Isn't it maintained by the bitcoin dev team?

Just sounds like a sly way to get a version of bitcoin going that doesnt have consensus from the devs...