My favorite part of today: I observed that in the Knots v Core debate, the Core side leans on emotion and the Knots side leans on technical/logical arguments
Immediately, Core supporters responded with ridicule and ad hominem -- i.e. appeals to emotion
I think their narcissism is also notable. To them, theyre obviously just the smart ones thay are right and nobody else understands them. Poor misunderstood victims
It turns out, sales/marketing DOES matter!! Software, ideas, ya gotta sell it all. Also turns out that people don’t like being talked down to… who woulda thunk 🤷♂️
I dont know much about the technicals, but I am still a bitcoiner. I have listened to a bunch of podcasts and read articles not really knowing the people involved. I dont know or care at all about the bitcoin personalities. I am grateful for the people making bitcoin function.
And I totally see your point.
Maybe it is an ego thing, not sure, but the core people seem to be saying “you are too dumb to understand so we will laugh and shame you”.
The knots people are explaining precisely why you should run knots if you want to keep nonmonetary data out if the mempool and keep Bitcoin a primarily monetary network.
Maybe my perspective does not matter because I am just a simple layperson who stacks sats and buys bitcoin stuff with bitcoin, zaps posts, and prays for freedom money to live on. Or maybe it does matter because I am just a typical chick agnostic to the egos involved and just want a robust Bitcoin freedom money monetary network. Call me a fucking idiot, I give no fucks! 🤙🏼😆
My 2 sats. Core has been successful keeping the protocol safe so far. Unless one believes they have been compromised then there’s nothing to worry about from them. As far as I can tell, their technical arguments are sound.
The only thing I would do differently maybe is to remove the op_return limit once fees are consistently higher to deter so called spam.
Waiting for higher fees means incentivising bad - but financially motivated - miner behaviour for longer too. So I guess core still has a point in doing it now.
Core devs weren’t able to explain or defend their technical arguments to the community. And above all, they acted arrogantly, disregarding any concerns from the community. They are supposed to be stewards—Bitcoin is not their private project; it’s a GLOBAL and PUBLIC monetary system!
I understood their arguments and happen to agree with them mostly.
Not sure who is included in the community you are referring to.
Regardless, I am pleased people discovered more implementations of bitcoin clients exist and can then question why Core before hitting install.
Everyone, including the plebs. There’s no agreement whatsoever in this matter, yet Core devs pushed and merged code without further discussion. It’s dictatorship by the nerds.
> Unless one believes they have been compromised then there’s nothing to worry about from them
I don't think you (or anyone) means this, but in case anyone thinks that the only motivation to use knots is thinking the Core devs are compromised, there is absolutely another motivation: simple disagreement with their software choices. They've chosen to set the spam filters to certain values and stated their reasons for doing so. Without any ill will, one may simply prefer to set different spam filters and therefore adopt software that does so.
I completely agree with you here. Most don’t understand the technical implications or motivations one way or the other and are wondering if the network and their money is in danger.
My simple heuristic is to stay on the side that has been safe so far until further notice.
All perspectives matter.
After reading that thread, I had to check if that was actually calle and not an impersonator. Appreciate you standing your ground and adhering to reason. 🫡
We must be living in parallel universes.
From what I can see, Core always argues calmly, professionally, with logic and technical arguments
while Knots always argues with emotional fallacies, false analogies, and plenty of ad-hominem and conspiracy theories.
That being said, Calle is an arrogant fuck and doesn't care about how he choses his words in this debate at all. Wouldn't assume that his opinion/behaviour represents "the Core side".
They calmly and professionally call anyone who disagrees with them an idiot.
There was an scaling solution that needs slightly bigger OP_RETURN so they decided to bloat utxo set instead. When core saw that they decided to increase memeppol limit. What was the scaling project?
I forgot and can't find it under all op_return rage. :D
It was Citrea, and AFAIK they plan to use utxo stuffing only if a bitvm contract is challenged. This is designed never to occur, as it requires someone to manually create and submit a "cheating" bitvm transaction, whereas "honest" bitvm software is designed to try very hard not to let you do that.
Besides the disincentive of manual work, it also carries a huge monetary disincentive: your counterparty in the bitvm contract is meant to be running software that automatically detects cheat txs and responds by taking all of the money the cheater put in the bitvm contract. (It works a lot like a lightning penalty tx, but more complicated because bitvm is complicated.)
Despite being designed never to occur, this potential for extremely rare utxo stuffing by one party has been leveraged to relax the op_return limit for everyone. Which I think is silly.
After this explanation core arguments look much weaker.
You are stuck in the past (few weeks :D).
Core people got annoyed by sub-par core arguments and either stopped responding or responded with snarky comments.
This provoked a new breed of knots arguers with more coherent arguments.
So what are the professional, logical, and technical arguments for easier CSAM inclusion into the blockchain (and we know it *will* happen)? This enables a new .gov attack surface. We can only go from zero to one once. Why assume this risk?
Impossible, I was told spam apologists were emotion-transcending, stoicism-scale-blasting, fact-fueled demi-androids.
While we mere mortal Knotsis need food to propel our well-sculpted bodies into our Lambos, they run on nothing but technical facts .. facts .. so many facts, bro.
https://insider.btcpp.dev/p/a-knotty-irony I stand with nostr:npub1e0z776cpe0gllgktjk54fuzv8pdfxmq6smsmh8xd7t8s7n474n9smk0txy
I'd say the exact opposite is true. Not wanting to implement the filter strategy relies on observations, accounts for human action, and takes the adversarial nazure of an open network into account. The filter strategy is mostly fueled by a mass call to policing action, an entirely moralistic argument, embedded in "if they would just" thinking.
You are aware that the filters were basically present since ever. There is empirical evidence you can trace on the blockchain that the filters are working as designed, as 99% of all transactions adhere to them?
It's not the Knots people that want to change Bitcoin.
Knots is deploying policy rules to filter transactions that are widely used and broadcast. That is a radical take off from existing practice. Filters do something if miners use them, if not, we have two good examples now that they are virtually useless at prohibiting transactions from reaching miners, or communicating to miners that they should not include them in blockd.
Please prove your point with quantitative data. Otherwise it's pointless to discuss this. If filters are useless, we can just leave them in place, no reason to alienate the community about it.
Both full rbf and sub sat fee txs made it through what could well be called fully deployed filters. The op_return filter specifically created a perverse incentive that led to counterparty, omni, and stamps embedding data in outputs, which is strictly worse than if they could have used op_return instead. The rule should have been relaxed a decade ago in my opinion.
I stop engaging now, there are really no facts we could discuss about, I would like to see some data. Nobody thinks filters will prevent any non standard tx going through, but they rate limit them enough to not impact the intend of the network.
Shouldn't we talk about individuals instead of generalizing to an entire group? I think both happen on both sides.
Hey there! I need to clarify a few things about your comments thanks, Connect with me with now on https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-7&smp=smp%3A%2F%2Fhpq7_4gGJiilmz5Rf-CswuU5kZGkm_zOIooSw6yALRg%3D%40smp5.simplex.im%2FocWN1F6Xy4FLkQUCPtmH3PY1e9IoEb96%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-4%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAgxg8S4IgT4nyu_ZgoguzAw3Hdpzz0Rb8URRAa7ZSsAU%253D%26q%3Dc%26srv%3Djjbyvoemxysm7qxap7m5d5m35jzv5qq6gnlv7s4rsn7tdwwmuqciwpid.onion
