My biggest problem with the knots vs core debate is that unlike the blocksize wars this cannot end in a fork.
Which means people are just going to endlessly squabble about this to eternity.
Discussion
My biggest problem is that this is all fun and games until there's an actual existential crisis looming for bitcoin that requires a fork, and whatever side proposes the solution can't get the other to run it to a sufficient activation threshold, because the other side thinks they are the literal goddamn devil.
It doesn't matter, bitcoin is defined by where value ends up flowing, there could more nodes validating BCH and BSV and it wouldnt change the fact that they are not bitcoin.
But soft forks always have a messy signaling period, where some arbitrarily set activation conditions determine if the fork is finally in play. One side releases the fork in good faith, and the other side plays stupid games that prevent activation, either out of spite or as an angle to get some other change.
There's a lot of "if's" that get us in this scenario, and a hard fork is always a last resort option, if we get there. It would, however, be in everyone's interest to try to turn down the temperature, before some crisis arises.
i'm waiting for the day that shareholders of IBIT or MSTR can vote on:
a) bitcoin is file storage
b) bitcoin is money
since those companies have the 2 biggest stacks, they choose the winner in the eventual fork by dumping the other.
Only for the short term.
yes. i think you're right.
in the long run the high road will win. but it could take a few years more if IBIT dumped the it for the shitcoin version. 40 more years wandering in the wilderness? ---i don't think this is happening, just having fun catastrophizing
I think it sorts itself out within a year
Agreed on all points