Thread

Bitcoin Core has been co-opted. They favor scammy span on the blockchain. They are getting paid by shitcoiners to damage Bitcoin. Bitcoin Knots nodes reject spam.

Your answer hasn't been helpful, as it's full of emotional rhetoric, and I don't see any information in your answer. Are you trying to say "Knots has a zero-byte limit on OP_RETURN?". That's the kind of answer that would be helpful

The most substantial difference is that one is a project with hundreds of regular contributors and peer reviewed code while the other is a sole developer whose code doesn't get peer reviewed.

I sense you're playing games.

I've been trying to quickly catch up with the details of Knots. Is this true: - it's new, and hasn't been reviewed much - it limits op_return to 42 bytes - today, Core has a limit of 80 bytes - but the next release of Core will have no limit on op-return - both clients transfer data via the normal Bitcoin client relay network and not over any other network; i.e. neither of them use any other network I'm trying to write neutrally, to get the facts straight. I'm very aware of the spam/op-return/unspendable-utxo debate, I just don't know much about Knots specifically

You and I have never interacted before, and you don't know who I am. I just asked for practical details of what the differences are. E.g. do they have different op-return limits? It seems to be common in Bitcoin to announce "Bitcoin core has been co-opted", such as during the BCH arguments. This tells me nothing, other than you dislike Core. I want facts, as I will be forming my own opinion.

Knots has existed for over a decade IIRC. Yes, lacking rigorous peer review. Sounds about right. Also right. There will still be limits, just much higher. Right.

And both clients have the same policy on forwarding Ordinals and Inscriptions? (Although, I guess it's not easy for clients to even tell if the Ordinals and Inscriptions are present [and spammy])

Knots has stricter rules and tries not to relay transactions perceived to be non-monetary in nature.

Listen to Matthew Kratter's Bitcoin University viddie on YT. He dopes it out in full detail.

I've seen enough videos on that channel. I pretty much agree with him, but he also wastes a lot of time in his videos ranting And I don't like the dumb video titles and thumbnails:

This is a dumb part of one of those videos Why would miners follow Cores direction on this? There are other problems with the video, but I'll keep watching

Kratter is a trader, relying upon him for technical explanations is quite foolhardy.

Another important reason users are running Knots as opposed to Core is Core doesn't allow for home mining. Or the #Bitaxe community is growing pushing more users to run Knots.

This surprises me, but thanks for the input! Surely most home miners have their miners connected to a (Core) node? Are you just saying that Knots has extra features and integrations to help it work with home mining?

Knots has better spam filtration by default and has more configuration options than core. Aside from OP_RETURN, core is also considering lowering minimum transaction fees below 1 sat/vb which would also allow more spam. Core is attacking Bitcoin either through incompetence or malice, knots fixes this.

Knots accepts unlimited-op-return transactions once they have been mined Is there a (credible) plan to introduce an OP_RETURN limit in the consensus rules?

So core is destroying Bitcoin and there is nothing we can do about it. Cool story bro.

This is at least a viable answer. I still don't see a good reason to prefer partial blocks over more fees, but if that's what people want it requires a change to consensus, not mempool

They already merged it.

GitHub

policy: lower the default blockmintxfee, incrementalrelayfee, minrelaytxfee by glozow · Pull Request #33106 · bitcoin/bitcoin

ML post for discussion about the general concept, how this impacts the wider ecosystem, philosophy about minimum feerates, etc: https://delvingbitc...

Yes I mean take a longer look if you haven't already clearly advertised right in our faces centralizing decentralization that makes sense yeah

Yes. Anyone wanting to mine to their own pool using their own node with #DatumGateway have to be running #Knots. I'm not one for censorship and I think the non-fungibility of BTC is being overlooked by many so I'm thinking of running another node with core installed so I can keep playing with Bitaxe-like miners and still support uncensorable bitcoin.

Yep

Is it true that the more nodes would reject a certain transaction, the higher fee will be needed to get it into a block? Hence making it harder to spam?

Nope.

Logically it makes sense but I guess there will always be nodes with little integrity who would accept the unwanted transaction.

I'm saying: make it harder to spam, not impossible. If a transaction is rejected by some nodes, it is more likely for it to be outpaced by the widely accepted transaction. So in order to make sure it gets into a block, the spammer might need to increase the fee. Especially if he's in a hurry. What am I missing?

If everyone switches to knots and nothing changes I meant to write

Massive nothingburger FUD that's being recycled from a decade ago.

Can you show me something where it's mentioned 10 years ago? Been a Bitcoiner 5 years and never heard this angle before. 🤔

Dismissing something as FUD isn't an argument. Please explain how willfully storing and relaying CP is not possession with intent to distribute. #theyknotlikeus