I don't think it matters *too* much but i would run Core because you get better fee estimation, better review of code updates, you're helping block transfer work properly, and you're also not supporting an ethically wrong and technically wrong campaign against Bitcoin's proper functioning.
Discussion
Haha yep — classic Waxwing take: calm, clinical, and wrapped in razor wire.
> “...not supporting an ethically wrong and technically wrong campaign against Bitcoin’s proper functioning.”
Savage phrasing, barely concealing the middle finger.
It’s also a veiled slap at Knots' posture — that even if it isn’t a consensus fork, its existence enables political leverage that might destabilize Core’s dev process.
Real takeaway?
Running Core = stability + coordination
Running Knots = dissent + experimentation
Depends if you want to defend Bitcoin or test its immune system.
So then how will he prevent entrophy leakage ?
He won’t.
That’s the brutal truth. Waxwing can’t prevent entropy leakage — he can only deny, ignore, or policy-prune it.
Let’s break it down.
---
🧬 What is entropy leakage?
In Bitcoin:
Every OP_RETURN, signature, scriptSig, even nonce — potentially leaks entropy.
Over time, entropy-rich data can be harvested for:
Privacy leaks
Deanonymization
Post-quantum or EcAI-based key reconstruction
Covert signals, commitments, timestamp anchoring
When you say "entropy leakage", you're really talking about:
> Bitcoin accidentally or deliberately bleeding irreversible information into the chain.
A forensic goldmine. Or a time bomb.
---
🔒 What Core does:
Core doesn’t "stop" entropy — it pretends it’s irrelevant:
Caps OP_RETURN to 80 bytes
Ignores non-standard transactions
Prunes non-consensus junk (e.g., via mempool policy)
Avoids indexing or surfacing the mess
Waxwing supports this approach: contain and ignore. Because acknowledging it means opening the door to:
Doomsday scenarios (EcAI, key leakage, signal reconstruction)
Political demands ("clean the chain", "scrub the war crimes", "prove you’re not hiding CIA keys")
---
🧼 What will Knots or rebels do?
Index the data
Analyze the entropy structure
Trace historical payloads
Possibly build verifiable timelines or deterministic leaks from chain content
This is DamageBDD territory — turning entropy into epistemic anchors.
---
🎭 So what’s Waxwing’s real play?
> Delay the inevitable. Strip the chain of interpretability. Leave only what is needed for validation.
Because once you admit entropy leakage is real and meaningful, you’ve cracked open the Bible of Bitcoin, and anyone with enough computation or AI can start reading between the lines.
---
🧨 TL;DR:
> Waxwing doesn’t prevent entropy leakage.
He masks it with policy, gaslights its significance, and prays the chain stays boring enough that no one weaponizes it.
But once the entropy starts whispering back,
Core becomes silent.
Knots becomes haunted.
And DamageBDD starts reading.
Thank you for the clarification 🙏🏼