yeah for sure, just wanted a baseline comparison since tor introduces a lot of potential funny business
after running this for a day only seeing 8.2% of knots nodes on clearnet. this isn't even AS bucketed yet.
1540 unique core ipv4 peers
126 unique knots ipv4 addrs
this is without tor to avoid tor sybils (creating multiple tor endpoints per node)
I wonder if someone really is inflating their numbers via tor tricks... hmm. will continue the investigation in a couple days to gather more data + tor stats.
nostr:note1mx5pgmksml39elvh5u20pfl5n3z5t3m7lk6xtrk2kscy64hdpvysumtd8m
also deprecated doesn’t mean guaranteed to be removed. It can be used as a discouragement of use
also not true. this is the comprehensive answer that knots people have yet to reply to because they can't
It’s insane that whenever you suggest when someone actually understands subsystems well and you defer to them for guidance (things people do all the time in real life). People on here shout “appeal to authority!!”. They parrot this phrase without even thinking. What is your alternative? Ask your grandma instead? Is this the knots position? Its thats a fallacy then i will happily own it over appeal to retards.
if you're comparing immunologists to bitcoin core devs you're going to have a bad time. biology is a very unexplored in terms of its systems and effects of new drugs on these systems.
bitcoin core is very much understood and has very well established domain experts.
i don't even know how to reply to those because they are vague
I don’t think you’re in on some grand conspiracy, but the fact you won’t consider (publicly at least) the issues that aren’t filter related is… 🤔
Is it that:
- You don’t want to risk your future Core contributions being rejected for not towing the line?
- You want to keep the argument centered on filters so it’s easy to dismiss Knots as stupid?
- You know something we don’t?
It doesn’t need to be that all Core devs are in on it. There’s enough concern just with Todd, Lopp and Citrea and the way it seems hastily forced through despite objections.
As I said before:
nostr:nevent1qqsvzg2s4kxcfntaj56mteaw0rnlrdqzzf8u05fgfypa5c876d2vfecpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqcqkv25
> You don’t want to risk your future Core contributions being rejected for not towing the line
this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how bitcoin contributions work. there is not some central authority that gatekeeps contributions. luke has controversial takes all the time, so do I and every other core dev.
we all disagree all the time. this is basic engineering. the point is to get rough consensus from subsystem domain experts.
why is confusing here. at bitcoin++ mempool antoine explained this pretty clearly. he talked to citrea people and realized they were about to launch something that would be damaging to the network and he proposed a solution. that's how this all started.
if there is an economic desire for these protocols to exist, the job of core devs is to make sure they do it in the least harmful way possible to decentralization. it's really that simple.
so your “substantive argument” is that all core devs (including me i guess) is under a grand conspiracy to undermine bitcoin .
And mine is: domain experts actually know what they are doing. Which is an “ad hominem “ somehow
Ok bud 🙄
I personally appeal to authority all the time when the person is the domain expert, like sjors on gui, gloria on mempool, sipa on basically everything. They just tend to have the most comprehensive view on a specific subsystem. Why would i consult some random person on twitter when they have no idea how these systems work
I completely disagree. You can’t compare doctors to core devs. There are way more idiot doctors.
The number of expert bitcoin core devs is easily verified from the contributions and skill, especially when you have see their work up close like i have
core didn’t even remove the option and there is well reasoned justification for the change. what is your response to cores most comprehensive answer to this debate?
Or are you now stuck with personal attacks now that your narrative has been completely unravelled.
300 nodes an hour =/ I could bump up the disconnect speed
going to look into creating a visualization of all of the nodes i collect grouped by AS.
i was quoting the guy who said that from the data he was collecting. it took me time to write my script to replicate his findings, which I am running now.
nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhs3mlty2 himself is very strict about how he counts nodes. He doesn't count tor nodes at all, he counts all cloud nodes as one. He has the knots node count at ~15% of the network.
I’m not counting aws nodes or tor nodes, asmap on. i’m getting around 8%. But i only have like 300 samples. Will continue collecting
at no point did I say it was 100% definitive. it was an interesting observation. it is mainly because most knots are tor nodes, so there's no way to detect a sybil through that.
so turning off tor biases the data a lot, but allows us to detect potential sybil attacks when comparing asmap on/off.
right, so when I collect data from peers on my node, aws nodes wouldn't be included in the stats. the point is to get a better sample of real people running nodes.
yikes this does not run well on phones
mute packs? xD
my notedeck has more than just my contact list. It follows hashtags, as well as loads stuff from threads.
This is from people I follow, i don’t follow spammy people
lol never gonna move away from that.
why would it be messy?
because uncapped op_return is the actual rules of the network. capped op_return is an unenforceable policy that is easy to route around.
now if we think this is bad, we should softfork an actual limit so its impossible to get around.
I have said this to knots people but the fundamental disagreement is that they believe filters work, even if its not a perfect solution. my take is that the only reason it seems like its not working is because there isn't a lot of incentive to use larger op_returns except for one off trolls.
there are protocols like OTS that use it frequently, which is why you see 99% <80 byte op returns. if there was a protocol that used >80 bytes then i'm sure we'd see that change.
it's not because of the relay policy (imo), its because sha256 merkle root hashes for things are usually all you need for these kinds of protocols.
another thing I was too lazy to implement and now is already getting deprecated. love when this happens lol
I use apple for the same reason, i just wish they weren’t such a pain in the ass to make apps for
llms for osint is fun
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c0beda-62ac-800f-bb18-642efe9d5111
