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.
Login to reply
Replies (13)
Number of nodes is meaningless. Happened with Bcash. And bsv.
And that will be good for Bitcoin - as many as possible Bitcoin Knots nodes who filter as much as possible spam and CSAM.
Truth is out there.
We all know what Citrea did. And then Core started the propaganda.
Core censored contributors opinions for mentioning Citrea, core gaslighted, core attacked Bitcoin Knots nodes ...
The qustion is if Core will continue to act in bad faith?
The Core propaganda line goes like this:
They don't know how spam will be increased with the change from 80 Bytes to 100 KB.
They don't know what is spam.
They don't know what is Bitcoin.
And they don't know what is The Internet
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
I agree, but they had a resolution mechanism. They forked off and then the market decided. That can't happen here.
I'm not sure about the 'can't happen' part.
What if a vulnerability affects only one client?
Then they'll patch and carry on.
Yeah. I hope sthg like this won't happen but I'm sure if it does the drama level goes to 11.
Mossad ran 9/11 Arab "hijacker" terrorist operation
By Wayne Madsen
Inscription 72,990,614 | Ord.io
Search, browse, and vote on ordinal inscriptions like never before.
Incorrect.
The resolution mechanism is Nodes enforcing their Will upon the Miners, by activating a Softfork.
Yep.
Run a node.
Stack sats.
Don’t shitcoin.
Go outside.
🧡👊🏻🍻
Not sure how you want to resolve a dispute about the effect of policy with a soft fork. Seems unrelated.
Softfork to introduce new Consensus Rule maximum limit on OP_Return at 83 Bytes.
That won't solve this dispute, it is about prohibiting relay of data embedding transactions in general.