I see it. We jumped almost 3% in one day, and over 1000 knots nodes came online today. I do not think they are all real. However, there was also a noticeable drop in Core nodes today, and that is harder to fake. I'm not sure what's going on, but right now my working hypothesis is: on the Core side, a bunch of people are dropping out; on the Knots side, a mix of sybils and newcomers from Core are bulging the Knots numbers.
he is not a retard, he just disagrees with us on something
> you already need Hitler to bring gillible people to knots?
It's not to bring anyone to knots, it's to make people laugh
> What about the downsides of knots? Why dies no one work on those?
Lots of people work on them. As an example from one of the downsides you brought up, here are people working on it: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/134
> Knots stands on a single Person. (A bit too centralized in my Mind)
At least 10 people work on knots.
> Knots forces you to update your node. (Really, this is what you promote?)
It can't force you to do anything. It is software, you choose whether or not you want to run it, and if you opt to run it, you opt into the consequences. If you don't like them, don't run it. I recommend checking out Bitcoin Core for a different set of consequences.
> Running knots has literally zero impact as you See
I don't see that. It has consequences on you; it has consequences on your peers; it has consequences on block propagation; and, according to you, it forces you to update your node, along with potentially other less specified dangers.
> there will always be "spam" as long there is a market and they pay
True. Also true: if more people fight it there may be less of it
> Everyone who is capable installing knots can also simply adjust the op_return limit in core
Partially. But not fully. E.g. you can't reject transactions with multiple op_returns.
> Lets see how far knots can make it until it crashes from bugs.
Yes, let's.
Some of us are CTV advocates *and* filterers. Myself and nostr:nprofile1qqsz39wrxrpr7wp3jmqwlxydumdg8wpmgkp76huurmds54vuangljqqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dskm7623 for example.
I hope my ideological opponents laugh at the joke rather than cry. It is not intended as a serious portrayal of their opinions.
Yes, I saw one of your posts and it inspired me
Good news for you my friend, knots has zero built in support for covenants (except if you consider n of n multisigs a type of covenant, as I do)
I thought about having him say "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a knotzi" -- which would have been ironic but a bit too on the nose
EDIT: I take back the statement that Antoine calls filterers morons; that is Shinobi (https://x.com/brian_trollz/status/1950547963002118196)
EDIT: I take back the statement that Antoine calls filterers morons; that is Shinobi (https://x.com/brian_trollz/status/1950547963002118196)
It's an amalgam of opinions I've heard from several people, among whom, in alphabetical order, are:
- Antoine Poinsot (he says filter fans are morons and larpers)
- Calle (he says Knots only has one developer, and ridicules filters)
- Hunter Beast (he says it's good to use bitcoin as a text dump)
- Jameson Lopp (he is a bitcoin core dev with a financial interest in using bitcoin as a text dump, as an investor in Citrea)
- MrHodl and Post Capone (the stuff on economic nodes is inspired by them)
- Shinobi (he says plebs have no expertise to judge these matters)
The video, however, is only a joke, and is not meant to attribute an opinion to any particular person or criticize anyone or any opinion in particular
thanks! To be clear, it's only a joke, not to be taken as serious criticism of anyone or any position
Consider working on knots
Ah, the pitfalls of designing nostr stuff that only uses one relay. The relay is down, of course, and showing an nginx error. 
> How can you do that without access to the node who created the invoice and the payer app?
Through one of the various apis for it. I typically look for the allowsNostr flag, which is set to true in most lightning addresses, and then, when querying for an invoice, I request a zap receipt. The zap receipt, once posted, is how I tell if the invoice is paid or not.
> Is that possible?
Yes, I do it here, for example: https://supertestnet.org/support.html -- the "Lightning" option simply queries for an invoice from my lightning address and sends a request for a zap receipt as well, then starts listening for the zap receipt to be posted on nostr. Once it sees it, I show that the invoice has been paid.
> The node could tell you if the invoice is paid, but all you get is an invoice from an LN address
That's not all you get if you request a zap receipt; you also get reason to expect that once you've paid the invoice, a zap receipt will be posted on nostr and reference a pubkey or note of your choice, which you pass when making the request. And that zap receipt is one way to tell if/when the invoice got paid. Check out the zaps spec for more details.
awesome! I let nifty know here: https://x.com/SuperTestnet/status/1966013327873540233
Why Ocean says its miners make more money
The short answer is: lower fees. Mining pools don’t distribute *all* of their revenue to their miners because the admins keep some revenue for themselves as fees. Ocean charges *lower* fees than all other pools, so they give *more* revenue to their miners than all other pools. But there’s a somewhat complex reason why Ocean can afford to do that. So I’m about to give the long answer.
But before I do that, here’s some background: Ocean Mining is a controversial mining pool in bitcoin for several reasons. One reason is the loud opposition to “arbitrary data” voiced by some of its administrators. Most mining pools in bitcoin have a welcoming attitude toward almost any transaction that pays competitive mining fees, regardless of what data it embeds on the blockchain. But Ocean’s administrators loudly oppose transactions that embed pictures, audio, and other non-financial data on the blockchain, and they propose a default mining template to their miners that excludes many such transactions, even though the pool collects less money from transaction fees as a result.
This stance causes some bitcoiners to wonder how Ocean remains competitive with other mining pools. Aren’t they making less revenue than other pools? That must be the consequence of rejecting a whole class of fee-paying transactions by default, right? And shouldn’t that lead their miners to make less money than they can make at other pools, and abandon Ocean as a result?
Ocean’s loud answer is: “Nope, on the contrary, our miners make more money than the miners at other pools make.” And this is not because Ocean *earns more* than other pools (in fact, as might be expected with their stance, the pool earns slightly less); it is because Ocean *distributes more* of their revenue to their miners.
Think of it this way: suppose there are two pools, Ocean and Desert. Both have 100 miners who all contribute equal amounts of hashrate. But while Ocean earns $500,000 per block, Desert earns $501,000, because it welcomes transactions containing lots of arbitrary data. In that scenario, you might expect Ocean’s miners to collect $5,000 in revenue apiece while Desert’s miners should get $5,010. But admin fees change this: if Desert charges 2% in admin fees, and Ocean charges only 1%, then Desert’s miners will only make $4,909.80 per block while Ocean’s will make $4,950. So a pool can earn slightly *less* money in total but still distribute *more* money to its miners simply by charging lower admin fees.
So that explains part of how Ocean remains competitive, but there’s another factor I’d like to cover: how can Ocean afford to charge lower admin fees than its competitors?
The answer involves something called “variance.” Mining bitcoin is partially random; which pool mines a given block is not exactly predictable, but a general rule is, the pools with more hashrate mine blocks more often. But sometimes a pool gets unlucky, and doesn’t mine very many blocks for a while, and when that happens, its payouts are smaller than expected. This creates a layer of unpredictability – aka variance – that mining pools don’t like: many miners would *like* a guarantee that they will receive a particular amount each month, but variance makes this difficult.
The solution adopted by most mining pools is to use a portion of their admin fees to create a kind of “luck fund.” When the pool is unlucky, and doesn’t make enough money to pay their miners what they usually pay, they get the difference from this fund, and replenish it when their luck returns.
Ocean simply does not have this luck fund, so they just don’t charge the portion of their admin fees that they *would* otherwise deposit into that fund. When you mine with Ocean, your payouts only come from what they earned in recent blocks, and none of it comes from the luck fund, which does not exist. This means you make more money than other pools so long as the pool’s luck is average or higher than normal (because they charge lower admin fees), but less money when their luck is poor (because they mined fewer blocks than expected, and have no luck fund to make up the difference).
In summary, Ocean claims its miners make more money than miners in other pools because Ocean charges lower admin fees, and thus they can distribute *more* money to their miners, even though the pool makes slightly *less* money *in total* than other pools. They can charge lower admin fees because they do not have a luck fund, and this means the amounts they payout vary more than other pools do, but with a significant skew to the upside. I hope that helps!
I didn't check a couple of days ago so maybe it happened then, but it looks like Ocean only shows up in the top 10 for the past 24 hours because binance pool and brains -- who usually measure more success than Ocean -- got particularly unlucky today and brought down the total measured hashrate.
Ocean, meanwhile, slightly overperformed, but that part doesn't look like it really mattered to their ranking -- even if they only produced as many blocks as expected per their self reported hashrate, they would still be in the top 10 today because not as many blocks were produced today as one would expect, and that is also due to Binance and Braiins being unlucky today.