Bitcoin is far more than the technical people who do things to its code. Every holder, noderunner, and miner also gets a say.

Core is "trying to change" not knots. You have it reversed.

I think the point is that core wants to make changes and as you said non technical don't want to make changes. Am I wrong?

I'm deleting damus and never recommending. Bitcoin is my money, and I have valid opinions even if I don't code. Plus, you - the coder - obviously don't understand bitcoin at all. This is THE DUMBEST and most arrogant post I've ever seen on nostr. Impressive.

If the technical/rational ones are being paid then should they still be considered the only valid ones?

I’m not saying core is bought and paid for. But unless we know 100% that they are not then why would we think they’re the only ones with valid opinions?

Weird argument for someone who just lost half the market share of a project within a few months. Nobody gonna pay you or give you gold stars for contributing to something no one wants.

fixed it: "I completely agree. The technical and rational people are NOT the valid ones. It’s a meritocratic system. Money should not be ruled by the emotional whims of people who don’t understand the system they are trying to change. If we allow that then bitcoin is doomed.

If you want to make a change, then become a KNOTS contributor, learn how bitcoin works, run a node. Forking off into some alternate with an the *only* sensible maintainer is a way but not ideal."

the only ones who doesnt provide any ratiinal for why core30 is supposed to be good is you.

esentially, you disqualify yourself. you say you trust core, thus you dont have a facts or arguments based opinion yourself.

you currently choose that, thus nobody shluld discuss the pros/cons of core30 with you, because your opinion is just: i believe in core - they probably thought about it.

yeah - let me know if you change your mind by providing an actual issue based opinion that can be discussed. believe cant be discussed

I didn't make that argument. And that's not the main argument against Core, nor the main argument for Knots. That's a weak straw man. Do better.

Calling Bitcoin a ‘meritocracy’ is just a polite way of saying a handful of insiders get to decide the rules. That’s not what Bitcoin was built for. It’s supposed to be decentralized, permissionless, and accountable to everyone who uses it. It is not a gated club where only the self-appointed elite have a voice. If Core keeps drifting toward technocratic capture, it betrays the very ethos that made Bitcoin matter in the first place.

here is the argument in video form

https://youtu.be/eVf0rmnVqPY?si=DXswr6T1AUMnKA6V

there are rwasons for this PR, i am sure - but are they really what you claim or thino they are?

if this is supposed to prevent pool centralization, at the very least - given that this is such a contenious issue, we should be able to read up about the exqct reasoning - so far i havent come across that.

I get your point. Thanks for making me think about it.

But like you said, even if I could, I would never seriously join the discussion

Can you expand on the last part? Sounds like you're in favor of vetting node runners. Should only approved users be allowed to run a Bitcoin node?

This sounds a lot like "trust me bro"

A bot can make better arguments than you and other core supporters apparently.

There’s a good chance I know that bitcoin doesn’t care, qnd I know I haven’t contributed to it as much as most of you.

But this is still an ass hole move, and a dismissal of my time and efforts. I’m trying my best to not become a salty enemy of bitcoin now, but toxic bullshit like this…

You could just quote eric hughes: Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we may not deceive ourselves. I think you may be focusing on the next line, where he says they will not be moved out of their course, and being disengenuous about that first part.

Genuine question from someone who doesn't understand WTF is going on and what side to take. If I don't want to save JPEGs on my node, is Knots the best choice for that (currently) or would not running any node be the only way moving forward?

Charlie's concern seems valid to me or is this not a concern? nostr:nprofile1qqsr9cvzwc652r4m83d86ykplrnm9dg5gwdvzzn8ameanlvut35wy3gpzdmhxw309aex2mrp0yhx5c34x5hxxmmdqyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvyzvgs2

Bitcoin may not care but I do and I assume other node runners likely will.

What happens to perpetrators is irrelevant to the node operator, as once said content passed through consensus rules it has to be stored and shared, unless the node opts out of the network altogether, or in some way avoids part of the chain by running pruned. As far as I know, there is no pruned way to avoid csam with a pruned node as it is more about which blocks when, not content. And neither should someone who wants to run a full archive node have to comply with such things. I’m not a fed, and we’re not talking AML. It’s a fundamental difference between free speech and expectations to host and share things that are counter-productive to our species and to knowingly do so.

If core think (like you) that they are the arbiters of code, and they don't need the community for direction, then core will splinter; if it hasn't already. Its basic game theory of protocols.

No? Even though his concepts are a foundational part of bitcoin without which Bitcoin could not exist at all? Also mentioned in the whitepaper?

I know you feel attacked but the appeal to authority argument is jetfuel on this fire.

Do you think there’s any bias at all because you all have actually contributed to core and wouldn’t want something you worked on to fail? Do you see knots as a security threat to Bitcoin?

I don't understand why Citrea cannot do something like Alpen Labs is doing with Strata, where they're able to keep all required "arbitrary" data under 80 bytes.

https://docs.alpenlabs.io/how-alpen-works/bitcoin-bridge

Would we not have to have this debate were it not for Citrea's technical choices?

That’s not what this is about and you know it.

From my pov people are finally seeing reason after sleeping on this issue for the past 2 years.

You don’t see why Knots affects you? That blindness is the problem. Knots exists because Bitcoin Core has grown complacent, insulated, and too comfortable dictating the “one true path.” Knots is a check on that power — a living reminder that consensus doesn’t come from a handful of maintainers or their curated narrative, but from the network of individuals who refuse to bow to central dogma.

You call it “social media campaigns based on lies.” We call it people waking up. Waking up to censorship. Waking up to the quiet slide into gatekeeping. Waking up to the fact that the cathedral you’re building on top of Bitcoin is not Bitcoin itself.

Knots doesn’t need your permission, your blessing, or your approval. It runs because people run it. It matters because it refuses to kneel. If you’re so sure it “doesn’t affect you,” then why the defensiveness? Why the dismissive tone? Because deep down you know: every Knots node is a rejection of monopoly, a refusal to swallow the narrative spoon-fed by Core.

We’re not here to ask nicely. We’re here to remind you that Bitcoin is not yours to guard, curate, or brand. It belongs to all of us — and Knots is proof that your grip is slipping.

Unlimited OP_Return is not. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

the more knots people ignore this reality, the more we will see alternative relay networks independent from core and knots (which we’re already starting to see). Nothing will stop this from an economically motivated actor unless we hardfork bitcoin and try to lock down these use cases.

You're speaking circular jibberish. Consensus means majority agreement. You say it is consensus but you whine bc the majority disagrees with you. Then you say the consensus (majority rule) is rammed down the majority's throat. Then you say you defend Core bc no one else will but Core is majority consensus. Then you say you're pro filter. You are the best case for Knots I've seen in a while.

nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0hvhj62 was one of the first people to take the correct side in the block size wars

It’s completely different because Core (the reference implementation) initiated this and so likening the push back from people against spam to the big blockers, who were trying to push something new (larger blocks) doesn’t make sense.

one wanted to change bitcoin, the other didn't want the change.

am i missing something?

It’s completely different because Core (the reference implementation) initiated this and so likening the push back from people against spam to the big blockers, who were trying to push something new (larger blocks) doesn’t make sense.

I doubt that's what's happening. Maybe I'm deluding myself but seems organic to me.

Well I bet it pushes pro core posts to mechanic and here we are full circle 😂