It drops tomorrow.

I'm in my mandatory cooling off period 😂

You should try dealing with a 372 month old 😂

Mercedes?

My Dads chauffeur had to slum it, his car didn’t even have a TV to watch while he was waiting to pick us up.

Shep?

Great, 6 foot under ground, but great 😂

He did!

GM 🫂

I was trapped in Fairfield Halls, Croydon by him for over 6 hours while he was wittering on about stuff one evening.

The first hour was great 😂

GM 😂

How yer diddling old pal?

GM 🫂

Another Day, another JPEG 😂

😂 😂😂

Remember this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE

GM

I feel the same way about Bitcoin bullruns 😂

GM,

I shitpost, it's great for the environment😂

I've never known anybody that didn't care take the time and effort to tell you that they didn't care 😂

OK 🫂 😂 😂 😂

nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq7lkl7yma2zsmxedrpgljp3jrxyzhnq853e7mk4fwac4624rejvlqqsfwtdr838cgu2laq73qz70p3k2wujcmshgzqmgcfj3crfxaxdq8csrpyfzr

😱

There's space on Bitcoin, fill yer boots.

Just moved to @npub13rhywhcdwvcfgu7qktm7kz3sxqkk6jvs237eq6n0vrmzrlsvnc6s6jcgea in 5 minutes on my second Umbrel node using this method:

https://docs.mempool.guide/page/migrationumbrel.html

Normies have things to hide?

You should inscribe that on the blockchain 😂

Having a nice day pal? 😂

According to AI:

Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots are both full node implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, but they differ in their features, development approach, and philosophy. Here's a concise breakdown of their differences:

Base and Origin:

Bitcoin Core: The primary reference implementation of Bitcoin, descended from Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software. It’s maintained by a large team of developers and is the most widely used Bitcoin client, running on over 99% of Bitcoin nodes. It prioritizes stability, security, and consensus compatibility.

Bitcoin Knots: A derivative of Bitcoin Core, forked in 2011 and primarily maintained by Luke Dashjr. It builds on Bitcoin Core’s codebase but includes additional features and modifications not found in Core.

Features and Configurability:

Bitcoin Core: Offers a stable set of features focused on broad compatibility and security. It includes options like blockmaxweight for block size limits and bytespersigop for transaction relay but is more conservative in adding user-configurable settings to avoid overwhelming users or risking network fragmentation.

Bitcoin Knots: Provides advanced configurability, particularly for mempool policies. It allows users to set stricter rules to filter spam transactions (e.g., rejectparasites=1, datacarrier=0, permitbaremultisig=0), prioritize transactions with full Replace-by-Fee (RBF), and limit blockchain bloat from large data transactions like Inscriptions. Knots also includes bug fixes and performance upgrades not yet in Core.

Mempool and Spam Handling:

Bitcoin Core: Has basic spam filtering (e.g., -datacarriersize to limit transaction data) but was vulnerable to exploits like Inscriptions, which bypassed these limits by disguising data as code. Core’s philosophy leans toward giving users less control over non-consensus policies to maintain uniformity.

Bitcoin Knots: Implements stricter mempool policies to reject spam transactions, saving node resources and reducing centralization risks from blockchain bloat. This makes Knots a preferred choice for users who want to actively manage their node’s transaction relay.

Development and Maintenance:

Bitcoin Core: Maintained by a large, decentralized team of contributors (over 540 historically, though not all active). It undergoes rigorous peer review, making it the standard for reliability and security.

Bitcoin Knots: Primarily maintained by Luke Dashjr, with fewer contributors, which some argue makes it less secure due to limited review. However, its code is public, and many patches are sourced from Core or proposed for Core, reducing risks. Critics note reliance on one developer could be a bottleneck, while supporters argue the code’s quality speaks for itself.

Philosophy and Use Case:

Bitcoin Core: Emphasizes stability and broad adoption, often avoiding controversial or experimental features to maintain network consensus. It’s seen as the “default” choice for most node operators.

Bitcoin Knots: Promotes user sovereignty and decentralization by giving node operators more control over their node’s behavior. Running Knots is viewed as a political statement against Core’s conservative approach to user choice and a way to support a diverse Bitcoin software ecosystem.

Adoption and Resources:

Bitcoin Core: Dominates the network, running on the vast majority of nodes, and is well-documented with extensive community support. It’s resource-intensive, requiring significant disk space (over 350GB) and memory.

Bitcoin Knots: Used by a smaller subset of nodes (less than 1% of the network). It’s also resource-heavy but may use fewer resources for mempool processing due to its spam filters. It’s downloadable from a single, clear source (bitcoinknots.org) compared to Core’s dual sites, which can cause confusion.

Security and Testing:

Bitcoin Core: Benefits from extensive testing and peer review, making it the most trusted implementation.

Bitcoin Knots: Includes features that are less tested than Core’s, which could introduce risks. However, it adheres to the same consensus rules, ensuring compatibility with the Bitcoin network. Users are advised to verify downloads with OpenPGP signatures.

Summary:

Choose Bitcoin Core if you want the most stable, widely adopted, and thoroughly reviewed Bitcoin software with a focus on simplicity and network uniformity.

Choose Bitcoin Knots if you value advanced configurability, stricter spam filtering, and supporting a diverse Bitcoin ecosystem, and you’re comfortable with a less-tested implementation maintained by a smaller team.

Both are compatible with Bitcoin’s consensus rules, so they operate on the same network without causing forks. Your choice depends on your priorities: stability and popularity (Core) or customization and ideological alignment (Knots)

nostr:note1rjf7yduevyrl0a8eujyjw948wwtd56zvhfkns62c8tfug9vg9rxsm3rgh4

Somebody should write a song about that:

In Peony Lane, there is a barber showing photographs

Of every head he's had the pleasure to know

And all the people that come and go

Stop and say hello

That’s not the way it’s failing.

I’m an apprentice boomer, waiting to take over from my master overlords, may I be of assistance?

Do you think I should? 🤔😂

So far, the core team have not been open to engage or open to feedback on this matter.

This is an own goal for the core team, which I hope they will reverse.

Talk to us, we will listen, without prejudice.

I know 😂

Yes, that was the article I was referring to in the previous note with Will 👍

Understood and agreed.

Yes, 100%, this is the problem.

This is the bit I don't like or respect.

I don't agree with NFT artists wanting to store JPEGs on my node, but I'm prepared to accept that they are valid people doing valid things.

So my personal preference until we reach consensus about whether we want NFTs on Bitcoin is to not call them spammers.

I'm playing with Knots, but it's more important to understand the argument first.

I'm not trying to win the Knots argument, I'm trying to understand the Core position.

You are accountable to your community.

I hear Mechanics argument.

I don’t hear Cores.

Yes, that's my opinion

Mechanic has not contributed code, but you can’t say he hasn’t contributed. So if you want to be technically correct you can be, but this is a moot point for me.

So let’s take this in stages as I understand it, and I’ve only listened to Mechanic and read Antoine’s summary and listened to people like Adam Back and supporters.

Mechanic was not blocked on GitHub until this OP_RETURN discussion came about.

There is a disagreement, this isn’t a technical discussion, this is a functional discussion. If you don’t listen to people who disagree with you, you fall into a hole that has no escape.

I’m a node runner, I don’t choose to allow an unlimited size OP_RETURN, I am changing all 3 of my production nodes and both my test nodes as I write. I may not have understood this fully from the Core side of the argument, but they choose not to engage with people like me, so I’m not hearing their argument.

If Bitcoin core doesn’t convince the 20,000 to 60,000 node runners like me and we all switch to Knots, Core dies.

Jameson Lopp and Peter Todd become irrelevant.

This:

https://x.com/lopp/status/1917691277681770662

😂

I know, but I can switch back and forward like a magic Bitcoin fairy 😂