Thread

🛡️
frustrated with both core and knots would like to see a conservative well reviewed and maintained third option will do my best to make that a reality until then i will simply not upgrade my nodes

Replies (66)

There's nothing worse about Core than it has been for years now. Nothing changed. Luke and Ocean are retarded anyway. Also, why is everyone pretending libbitcoin doesnt exist? You wanna support something meaningful? Fund Eric Voskuil.
Knots is means to an end. As soon as the goal is met, of making Core something for the market not run (assuming they're sticking with their decisions), then I'll move to a more suitable node other than Knots that's basically the same but with a better team of good talent and sound mind and character.
🛡️
Who would have thought that the developers prefer risking it all rather than sitting together respectfully and working things out for humanity just like the founders wanted it to be, money only! BTC is created to make the bankers obsolete
Is the implication meant to be that Bitcoin Core isn't conservative, well reviewed, and/or well maintained? If so, why do you think that? Or is your desire to have additional implementations that are conservative, well reviewed, and well maintained? If so, do you think that's a better use of limited developer talent than focusing on making Bitcoin Core better? When I read your post, I get the feeling that you think about "Core" and "Knots" as teams that each move with a single shared purpose, as if under the direction of an individual. That might be true for Knots, which effectively has a single developer, but it's not how I see the Bitcoin Core project, whose contributors are often in disagreement with each other (if usually only about the best way to achieve a particular goal). Maintaining that environment where independent contributors can easily collaborate, are free to express their differing opinions, and can create single-topic software forks (like PT's librerelay or the BIP148 activation client) if they feel out of alignment with the other devs seems to me like a better use of scarce talent than creating more implementations for the purpose of having more teams.
↩ replying to ODELL
Core used to be like that and even the knots apologists like Bitcoin Mechanic say they want to just submit a pr to core and have a good relationship where these ideas can be discussed and worked out. Knots is just the fallback escape hatch. I think core should prioritize working with a large section of devs and should try not to give the middle finger to the more prominent devs with big followings lol
🛡️
Puts last year's discussions on ossification into context really with all the squabbles. Be fascinating to see what would come out if all this energy were directed instead to L2/L3 solutions and additional work on mining and hash power decentralisation. Humans are similar to electricity grids - vast energy losses in trasmission!
Get Eric Voskuil on citadel or listen to his Bitcoin takeover interviews. The project is solid but, from his words, hasn't taken any third-party funding. As a dev, libbitcoin is ok to get running and hack on, but it's missing the type of project management that core has. It's not really possible to find out what needs to be done, unless it's behind closed doors. All their comm channels seem dead
🛡️
Why? Core solution is just accepting that Ordinals are inevitable in the chain and minimize damage, allowing people to use OP_RETURN as preferred option to upload this data. Instead of storing in Witness or another solutions that increase UTXO set, that will be an increase in RAM requirement for nodes, a true menace for decentralization.
Do we have any third implementation that would simply be conservative? Just a v28 with only patches in case of network-threatening bugs? I'd like to support that kind of third implementation. Might as well use those sats while they still hold some value...