I heard the terrorists and sex traffickers prefer core over knots

I mean it is already on...let it crash so I buy more...nothing will kill bitcoin.

🤣

Knots are a fuckin PsyOp.

They are not happy with new ideas of Nostr and Bitcoin combine .

Well...when Crypto scammers align with your idea and promote it, it is always shady. Jeff Booth supporting Knots got me thinking..

bitcoin miners advertise their name on their blocks, and their businesses are registered with the government. they are not going to allow CP on chain. this whole effort to enable spamming bitcoin is coming from the shitcoin crowd, mostly ethereum, trying to turn bitcoin into an ethereum abomination. it's gonna backfire on them hard because legitimate mining companies with public liability are not going to allow this kind of spam to end up on the chain. they have the resources to recognise it, and filter it out. they will stop using bitcoin core because it is being perverted to enable this, and will probably even throw money at more devs to make knots the preeminent bitcoin node.

I don't see that happening as inscriptions and ordinals are a serious fee generator and bitcoin security relies on fees mechanism...not all inscriptions are spam as labeled and for sure child porn is way more centered at more untraceable networks than bitcoin. The whole child porn fud is a lame state level attack on bitcoin. Convincing people to switch to Knots which are mainly maintained by one dev versus bitcoin core and 80 devs from all ways of life is just wrong. I see knots as a scam. It filters shit...delays valid transactions and lies that it does what it doesn't.

a) there is now multiple contributors on Knots b) ethereum is the most likely sponsor of the attack to delegitimize bitcoin because they want to get in bed with the government, and their sponsors, Consensus, and indirectly, JPM, want to run the CDBCs. CDBCs can't be run on bitcoin. Bitcoin is *the* reserve currency, and lightning obviates any need to cover the POS use case c) delaying worthless spam is worth doing because what we want to see is a lot more lightning nodes facilitating instant payments plus d) every single person i have read giving justifications for relaxing the OP_RETURN limit policy filter has made non-arguments about how "it reduces the block size" and "raises the cost of spam" then why do it at all? not only that, the predominant vibe of these promotoors of core's removal of user configurability are using psychological attacks, insults, and non-arguments that involve justifying allowing this bullshit (and by that i mean spammy, fiat speculative transactions) to proliferate on chain increases miner transactions, ignores the fact that it is steadily increasing the baseline cost of running a bitcoin node, and thus this whole thrust is aiming to also centralize bitcoin. nope. you are wrong. bitcoin is mainstream enough now that the financial press are covering the subject regularly. people are making shitloads of money of its inflation hedging. they will not allow spam to fill up transaction payloads. the price will go up, filtering will go up, and ethereum is going to lose, and all of the people who believed the core propaganda are gonna have egg on their faces.

a) “There are now multiple contributors on Knots.” Yes, but it’s still overwhelmingly maintained and shaped by one individual. That’s a bottleneck. Bitcoin Core’s strength is in decentralized development and global peer review not trust in one maintainer. b) “Ethereum is behind this to delegitimize Bitcoin.” This is speculation with no evidence. Ironically, filtering transactions to enforce subjective views of what’s valid makes Bitcoin look more like Ethereum with centralized control layers. c) “Delaying worthless spam is worth it to support Lightning.” If a transaction pays the market fee, it’s not spam - it’s valid by Bitcoin’s own rules. Lightning isn’t a justification to censor on-chain use. Both layers can and should coexist. d) “Relaxing OP_RETURN limits will centralize Bitcoin by raising node costs.” Fees regulate usage. There’s no evidence that inscriptions or OP_RETURN are causing unmanageable bloat. Node cost concerns should be addressed with better infrastructure, not censorship. And remember: removing configurability is more centralizing than increasing optionality. You don’t preserve Bitcoin’s integrity by narrowing its use cases to your preferences. You preserve it by defending neutrality, permissionlessness, and open access to anyone who pays the fee. Bitcoin doesn’t need gatekeepers. It needs resilient, sovereign nodes - not a priesthood deciding what belongs on-chain.