Just get more people involved, fun them. We need more than one implementation anyway.
The same people(bitcoiners) who for years made fun of Vitalik appearance and criticized ETH shitcoiners for trusting him... now seem okay with trusting a #bitcoin node implementation from a guy who looks like this. Hypocrisy?
https://nostr.download/5a57723c35951c2d5401f7ca275b75f6d7f290a2ddb4ddd771cbfbbf3d0a80ea.webp
Discussion
Fund*
What's the argument for needing more implementations tho? If you are worried about the devs from X implementation going rogue, then it only proves the point that Bitcoin should ossify and not have any further softforks besides absolute necessary bugfixes.
whats the problem? people dont like the change that is being made they are doing the right thing, either dont update, or run a fork.
Your mempool and fee's estimates will be a mess with all these node implementations forks, all with different changes.
Let's not turn Bitcoin into a democracy, where people choose their leaders (devs) and vote (with their node implementation). This is not the way.
Even Saylor, who's a non-cypherpunk & fiat maxi, understood Core devs making changes to the protocol were a risk, and was pushing for ossification.
people do vote with their nodes, and people run what they want. its open source.
what happens if only a fraction of the network updates to the new version? do you want to force people to update their nodes bc they are messing mempool estimations?
As more changes are implemented and forks created, the harder will be for your Mempool to estimate fee's.
Also, you running Knots won't stop the "Spam" from happening or taking space in your node SSD.
the mempool fees maybe, but what do you want to do if people just dont upgrade? you can run a Core version almost as old as you like, do you want to do like ethereum, any change is an HF so you accept or fork off? If running Knots doesn't work so whats the problem? let people run what they want bc that was and is already the case.