No, people contributing to the upstream project are part of the process in the upstream project. Their review also benefits the downstream project as their code contributions are released with the downstairs project, but they are not participating in the downstream project's process.
Your restarting it like this makes me think that the distinction is not clearly understood.
Sjors and I chatted a bit about it in last week's Optech Recap about it, of someone wants to listen to other sources.
If you want to get more background on what the mempool is all about, Gloria and I wrote a ten week series in Optech two years ago: https://bitcoinops.org/en/blog/waiting-for-confirmation/
We also discussed each part of the series in the Optech Recap, if you prefer listening (look for the headphone symbol).
Oh, my apologies, I didn't realize what the source of the second screenshot was. Thanks
I'm just pointing out some facts, you do you
What are you referring to?
Maybe it's because we're not at the center of drama every other week
I agree that the people who are interested in that project should probably do something to improve the review it gets.
The project was previously hosted on sourceforge. Besides this number only counts the people that have committed code, not all contributors.
Luke is a BIPs Editor and the BIPs repository is part of the Bitcoin organization.
The other developers work on the upstream project, Bitcoin Core. It is not clear to me why you think he's joking. Irrational takes like this are par of the course for him.
I do. What's up with the leading questions? Are you working up to my code being released in Knots? I'm well aware of that, and that's an obvious possibility from most of my work being freely licensed.
No, I have zero interest to be associated with Knots in any way.
I have been seeing some claims that "Bitcoin Knots is part of the Bitcoin Core project", that "Bitcoin Knots is just another release of Bitcoin Core", and that "Bitcoin Knots has more contributors than Bitcoin Core".
Bitcoin Core has about 40 regular contributors with over a thousand past contributors. The Bitcoin Core project releases its software on bitcoincore.org. Bitcoin Core releases are signed by several Bitcoin Core contributors and other community members. Releases are attested to by this community.
Bitcoin Core’s source code is released under the MIT License. The MIT License is a permissive open-source license permitting anyone to do almost anything with the licensed code.
Bitcoin Knots is a project fork of Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Knots appears to be developed by a single developer pushing directly to master without peer review. Bitcoin Knots releases are composed of Bitcoin Core’s source code modified with a patch set of about 1400 commits. The same individual unilaterally issues releases. There is no indication that anyone else has ever contributed code or review directly to Bitcoin Knots. Bitcoin Knots is not endorsed by the Bitcoin Core project.
Claims to the contrary appear to be based on a unique individual perception of reality.
nostr:nprofile1qqs9r742wut5rt24z58w8z095pht6632g24fg99d8urxc9m09snxzkcppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7qgawaehxw309ahx7um5wgkhqatz9emk2mrvdaexgetj9ehx2aqk6z7et out together a table of content for the big Q&A thread on OP_RETURN: https://stacker.news/items/978404
Oh, oops
`:s/out/put/`
Blocks have been full until end of April and even now, almost all block space is demanded.
nostr:nprofile1qqs9r742wut5rt24z58w8z095pht6632g24fg99d8urxc9m09snxzkcppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7qgawaehxw309ahx7um5wgkhqatz9emk2mrvdaexgetj9ehx2aqk6z7et out together a table of content for the big Q&A thread on OP_RETURN: https://stacker.news/items/978404
The fact that nostr:nprofile1qqsq4gu7tthengqq577mpdyezkxf90z25g8mvkf355ks2k67km0lwwqprdmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7qgnwaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8svrx9ehxctcyar4z6 , nostr:nprofile1qqsgdp0taan9xwxadyc79nxl8svanu895yr8eyv0ytnss8p9tru047qpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuumswfhhvmm0wd6zumnvzhv2s3 , nostr:nprofile1qqs0zuj4s6jq9sr2ajqc69rc53d25rwpd3afcjrfm97r2qek69hcuscpr4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt4w35ku7thv9kxcet59e3k7mf0qywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctv9u3azmzy , nostr:npub1xapjgsushef5wwn78vac6pxuaqlke9g5hqdfjlanky3uquh0nauqx0cnde and nostr:npub1j5mp526z5fkz9wkrk6mt5nzu43xndyrwkr8mnqngdqwytgcpc5vqcnsd5c all have less that 5000 followers each on #nostr tells me how early we are.
Or, maybe it tells me that lot of the big accounts are just followed by newbies who don’t know the lore just yet 🤔
I haven't been particularly active, so it would probably be easy to miss that I even have an account here
Segwit limited the block weight to 4,000,000 weight units (WU). Blockspace has been almost fully demanded since Inscriptions started taking off around February 15th, 2023. Bitcoin Core reserves 4000 WU for the coinbase and block header, so I’ll count any block above 3,960,000 as full.
There have been 119,418 blocks since February 15th 2023. Out of those, 341 blocks were empty (below 2000 WU), 1155 blocks were non-empty up to 90% full (i.e. between 2001 and 3,600,000 WU), 292 were between 90% and 99% full (3,600,001–3,960,000 WU), and 117,630 have been full (3,960,001 or more). In the past ~27 months, 98.5% of all blocks were using at least 99% of the block weight. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that blocks are not full.
Knots = we don't like that a few dozen developers discuss in public and then do what they think is best for the software project they're working on—so we ask Luke to decide everything. 🤔
Not that I know
Blocks are generally full, so this cannot increase the size of the chain. In fact, since op_return data is written to output scripts, it may displace witness data and shrink blocks in average. Either way, Satoshi wrote that a decade ago, who knows what he would think today if he had been around to see everything that happened since then.
How so? The observation that OP_RETURNs are more expensive for larger data payloads has been a central argument why "spam" is unlikely to increase overall by this change.
Yeah, actually. Right now it's basically certain that transactions with larger OP_RETURN outputs get included. People that don't care how quickly it gets confirmed have no issue, but it happens unreliably, so users that feel the need to write time-sensitive data commitments may prefer writing them to payment outputs in fake pubkeys. So yeah, it would be better if Op_RETURNs got mined reliably.