If you run Knots because you think it's a better Bitcoin implementation than Core, you're just vibe noding. 🤪
Login to reply
Replies (59)
If you trust core devs you’re a vibecoiner 🍰
Please explain.
Most people are vibe noding regardless. Having more eyes on the software IS a less risky vibe though. In my opinion.
I haven't followed the whole story with Knots, but I read it's about spam. This is part of a blockchain. If you try to 'fight' it, you're censoring. It will only expand from there on.
It looks like the disagreement with Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin. The majority stayed with the original.
Its a fork of Core with minor auditable open source changes.
Loop is on the wrong side
The "core" team are not pilots of the bitcoin ship.
They have no business making "executive decisions". When they do, they will be demoted by the only ones who matter, the hodlers.
Is "bitcoin core", "the original", in your argument?
Like I make a startup selling cow milk which I call "BitcoinCore", but then I switch to selling cartons with beetle milk instead, while still keeping the same "BitcoinCore" packaging.
Then a competitor named "BitcoinKnots" comes by, selling cartons with real cow milk, and all the cool guys go "ooohhh BitcoinKnots is for losers we want milk homogeneity and you should stick with BitcoinCore!"
please explain how this could be true
It doesn't have anywhere near the same integrity guarantees built into the software development lifecycle.
If you think you need to trust core devs you haven’t studied bitcoin
Except changes aren't peer reviewed, so if auditing is occurring, it's not being done transparently.
and also... minor? last I looked there were hundreds of non-peer reviewed patches on top unless that changed.
Can you provide an example?
Is just better to run an older version of core say V22.0.0?
Core's software "integrity" process is why I switched to Knots. Selling out to shitcoiners is your idea of integrity, not mine.
Only if you enjoy running unpatched software vulnerabilities.
Literally every commit to the project. None are peer reviewed. Easily verifiable on GitHub.
Vibes over engineering confirmed.
This does nothing for me if the peers reviewing Core decide to make bitcoin a decentralized database for storing shitcoin spam instead of a decentralized monetary protocol. All the peer review in the world means nothing if there are irreconcilable differences in the direction Core wants to take Bitcoin.
Spoken like a true shitcoiner.
As a layman and in simple terms, how can you justify all the spam on the network? What good is it doing? What’s its purpose?
Smells like damage control.
More defectors?
Unless you’re a developer yourself then you do.
This is like saying “if you need to trust your automaker then you haven’t studied automobiles”
It’s consensus valid, so if miners want to include it, no one can stop it. You’re just getting bad fee estimates by running a node that ignores it.
If you think spam will outcompete the monetary usage of bitcoin in the long run, then you either don’t understand bitcoin or don’t believe in its basic value proposition.
That’s why I run Core.
silence engineer the social media vibers are talking
trust the experts 🤣🤣🤣 
Ah yes, here is the "integrity" Lopp was referring to.
to be clear I could care less what software you run, if you want to risk not seeing the correct balance, thats a you problem not mine.
Nah I just like nerdy humor.
Spoken like an ignorant shitcoiner who thinks they are holier than thou.
Casanostra Ink
I'd rather run core but it's been taken in a direction I won't go. Denegrate me as a "social media viber" all you want I don't care, I'll run the software that best aligns with my ideology. I'm curious, is there any change to core that would be going too far for you? Or are the experts to never be questioned? There is more to bitcoin than just pure engineering concerns. The fact that many core devs are blind to this is a serious problem.
you can do whatever you want man, i just personally like to base my decisions off deep consideration and understanding the problems at hand instead of virtue signalling after being manipulated by social media campaigns, but to each their own.
core vs knots social media beef aside: don't you believe that there should be more than one usable implementation of full node software?
I think it’s fine and can sometimes reveal bugs in the main client. but i think it would be risky if lots of different clients became heavily used in the economy. subtle bugs could be really bad.
We see this on nostr all the time. Any small implementation detail can lead to horrible incompatibilities. That would suck with your money.
Who's vibing now? Go off, master engineer Lopp! Engineer me harder! 😂 Your actions speak for themselves. You are a proven shitcoiner while for me it's yet to be determined, just like anyone else who hasn't publicly shitcoined as you have. 
Ethereum & Stablecoin Wallet | ETH Vault | Casa
Secure your ETH, USDT, and USDC with multiple keys for your ethereum wallet. Learn more about how Casa’s ETH vault can help you protect your digi...
That would definitely suck. Just hurts to see development go on and then have people say "it's too complicated to get parity with core" (fresh codebase, not a fork). Like even rust-bitcoin does a bunch of stuff different than core still due to complexities IIRC, which is, of course, a WIP but still not nice to know.
What exactly is the consensus review process that checks the integrity(no bugs that could introduce a security flaw) of the new code when Luke wants to change something?
Yeah, nobody knows you. Congratulations 👏🏼
Give me a break, who am I virtue signalling for, the 3 people who will read this? I too like to base decisions off deep consideration and understanding. I've been waiting for either from core devs and have yet to see it. Instead it's always conceipt, contempt, and hubris (on full display from you and Lopp today). If I've been persuaded more by team knots (or manipulated as you call it), that's because core has done a horrible job of selling this. Granted, it's pretty hard to sell a turd.
welcomed decentralization side effects...
I'd rather be unknown than known for being a shitcoin scammer. We are clearly different in that way. Also, weird comment from an opsec expert such as yourself, assuming you're being sarcastic. I learned from your mistakes!
If you think everyone should run the same node software you're clearly against decentralisation and want the network to be vulnerable.
I recommend Floresta or btcd because they have completely different codebases and have strong integrity assurances built into the software development lifecycle.
I chose to build a reputation but remain a ghost regarding my whereabouts in meatspace.
Don’t you live in NC
You sound mildly annoyed.
I used to trust you Lopp.
😇
You’ve done more to increase Knots adoption than everyone in this thread combined. Unsung hero in my book.
Good, you've taken the first step.
The second step is to use your brain to come to your own independent conclusions rather than simply trusting someone else.
You have no idea 🙃
You have a skill to rage MFs with a few simple words.
I love it.
🎯
Yep.
—That’s exactly why I don’t trust you.
Knots is not a better implementation than Core (it is actually a fork with small adjusments) I run Knots because the blockchain must be as clean and fast as possible.
The PR #32359 efect:
I’m vibe noding
View quoted note →
That is exactly what we do instead of following Core, we apply your advice.
Well, exactly what I wanted to say, I was referring to the following notes.
And as obvious as you see it and think you're right, we'll see over time who was right.
View quoted note →