Thread

Knots node count will continue growing as misinformed fools hope that running more Knots nodes will change the dynamics of data propagation on the network. It won't. But it will likely take a long time for certain stubborn folks to capitulate.
sedited's avatar sedited
There is no resolution mechanism for the relay policy dispute. My hunch is this fight will persist for a long time. It is likely in my view that the share of knots nodes running on the network will keep growing as a result.
View quoted note →

Replies (35)

🛡️
↩ replying to npub1t2cp...g0l3
I don’t think that what he’s doing is going to destroy bitcoin. I also don’t think he thinks it will destroy bitcoin. Core 3.0 is simply a power grab to by a cabal of coders that are showing that what “they” want is more important than what the opposition wants. The (knots) opposition wants to keep spam out and keep nodes cheap so anyone can run one on their phone for example. Core is fighting tooth and nail to keep it because there’s lots of money to be made from this crap. If these people are left to their own devices, then yes it is a threat to bitcoin. Whats next? Op_cat? Jesus who the fuck knows what unintended consequences that will bring.
Remove the spam filter on your email, have fun reading though all those every day. Then go buy a massive new hard drive or server every year for your node. Then you can store all that spam data, so you catter to rich elites transaction fees. 🤦‍♂️
If capitulation is set as the aim, the discourse is already tyrannical. Stewardship of a decentralized network demands humility; recognizing that resilience comes precisely from disagreement, heterogeneity of implementation, and persistence of minority views. To frame dissenters as “misinformed fools” and set their eventual surrender as the intended outcome exposes a will to dominate, not to serve. That is maleficence, not stewardship. A true steward would welcome even “inefficient” or “redundant” nodes as expressions of sovereignty, diversity, and the right of each participant to weigh tradeoffs for themselves. If your definition of success requires erasing opposition rather than integrating it into the fabric of the network, you’re not defending decentralization; you’re replacing it with centralization of narrative and authority. In that light, capitulation is not validation of truth but confession of defeat to power.
I am new to this so I apologize: Do you think large pools or relevant miners will implement their own filters to avoid risky content to be mined (as happened to BSV during 2019)? I guess they do it today anyway and BTC 2025 miners are more advanced than BSV 2019 miners.
No one ever needs to “capitulate”. To be blunt, this is dominance language - very strange to come from the mouth of a supposed Bitcoiner. 1. Individuals reserve the right to control what goes on in their mempool. 2. People can run forks like Knots indefinitely, it’s just a patched version of core. The disregard for people not wanting their conscience violated is palpable. View quoted note →
I would like to point out that not all ppl who run knots do it because they believe opening up op_return is bad. Some ppl do it because they have been spooked by some core devs behaviours. Some people switched to knots not bc of the change itself, but bc of the way core devs handled the whole discussion (arrogance, call to authority, technocracy, constant discredit of other party). They might be absolutely right on the change, but their public engagament has been horrible to say the least. Also their complete lack of self-reflection is staggering: "20% of the network is expressing dissatisfaction with us, well we surely have done absolutely nothing wrong and they must be all retards"). I think this is the biggest factor making ppl switch, core is harakiri itself big time with this behaviour