Replies (61)
My mempool.space instance tends to disagree with you.
I run a node to verify my transactions, and that's exactly what my node is setup to do
Filtering is a personal preference
So core is destroying Bitcoin and there is nothing we can do about it. Cool story bro.
sooo basically there's a loud and angry subset of low information bitcoin maxis who don't understand how the blockchain works or what the rules even are but they want to feel like they are participating. luke made knots for these people and he's enabling their ignorant behavior. these are the same people who will start frothing at the mouth if you don't share their ill-informed pseudo-opinion about any bitcoin improvement proposal.
It's a really bad look to constantly be paranoid about conspiracies to destroy Bitcoin
It makes you sound like a big-blocker
Even if you think you're right, that attitude is very off-putting to practically-minded people who want to understand and contribute
It's possible to make a conspiracy theory that Knots is the attack on Bitcoin, if you want to make this a boring argument with random allegations
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
filtering so lousy it has to be relaxed to lower the cost of data insertions
inb4: muh cbr
Of course there's something you can do: you can enforce stricter consensus rules. But no one in the puritan camp has the conviction to do so.
Sounds like you already know that the real reason is to fix the degradation of compact block relay performance.
I didn't put forward any conspiracy theories. Regardless of the motivations, opening mempools up to spammers by default is bad for the Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin needs to be openly hostile to spammers and scammers. A consensus change is not necessary to accomplish that.
Yes, but how much more is it costing them?
I can’t do anything about other people throwing trash in the ocean, but I don’t have to help them.
You’re annoyed that people don’t want to peddle spam in their mempool because it increases the cost for spammers to pollute the chain.
If it really didn’t do anything you wouldn’t be seething about it and bringing it up any chance you get.
Really? A stupid Grok response is the best you could come up with?
IF Knots doesn't effectively filter spam, then what seems to be the problem? Why so hostile? It's effectively fork of core without handcuffs.
I generally respect your work a lot but it seems this comment is biased due to being affiliated with MARA (which is notorious for broadcasting garbage on the chain).
there's no such thing as spam
yes, a consensus change would in fact be necessary
I participate in public discourse and one of my goals is to combat ignorance. This seems to be a point of willful ignorance from my perspective, perhaps even of comedic proportions, thus my roast.
Your choice of hostility as a strategy is noted: but how do you measure the effectiveness of the strategy? At what point do you cede that perhaps a different approach is necessary?
I decided I only wanted to spend about 30 seconds responding, so yes.
Everyone gets a vote. Here’s mine 🖕
Why do you care?
The effectiveness of the strategy may be immeasurable but it is the only viable option. Bitcoin is slowly becoming centralized. The only options we have to core making changes we don't like are to run an old version of core or run an alternate client. Refusing to upgrade is fine short term but long term can be problematic if there are bugs in the software. Mining is centralized but datum and ocean are making it more profitable to decentralize. If Bitcoin is going to continue being what it was created to be we must push back against bad ideas. Even if it fails, is it not worth the fight?
What’s the urgency, fren?
Why the push?
If this is the case, your end point has been achieved…….
Victory is yours…….
Look, blatant disrespect from an influencer. This guy hates us.
Jameson Lopp
You Knots runners think you're guarding the blockchain's purity, but your node filters spam about as well as a colander holds water. It's chugging through blocks, guzzling spam like a frat bro shotgunning cheap beer at a tailgate. Keep running that node, though; it's cute how you think you're the blockchain's bouncer when you're basically letting everyone you detest waltz right in!
View quoted note →
Which one is it kids?
View quoted note →They're the Bitcoin equivalent of vegans.
So go ahead and make an alternative client. Not just change a few settings in core and give it a different name.
This sounds like cope.
You are upset that other people are running their own nodes and not using your preferred client?
Sounds like cope from an upset spammer
Just let the spammers destroy Bitcoin so that it can't be used as money.
It's not like utility coins and shit exist nah let's put all the spam into Bitcoin instead
Notice how the morons are trying to make this a knots vs core argument instead of an argument about spam?
Is knots the only alternative to core?
nobody actually thinks that knots retardation will stop "spam" outside of people who still run knots. the network is censorship-resistant. sybil attacks won't work
Filters work 100% of the time every time you mine a block.
core should exactly mirror network consensus. anything else is irrational. there is absolutely nothing core is doing that is against the rules of the network. if you don't like the "spam" transactions then convince miners to fork. in the meantime your mempool filters are about as helpful as homeopathy.
Fork it, then. I've said multiple times here that we should be forking the fuck out of it. I'm in the puritan camp. Prove you mean it. But you don't mean it - you specifically want to attack bitcoin. You're not interested in attacking something inconsequential. Big talk, but that's it.
Relying on AI to think for you is probably what made you retarded enough to think that Bitcoin exists for storing jpegs rather than as a monetary network
Sounds like nonsense.
Is knots the only alternative to core?
People who want to centralise and control the network are bad actors.
Be it because you're a spammer, be it because you're a bootlicking statist.
Whatever it is
Your attitude speaks volumes.
There's no need to removing people's ability to set a limit. Maybe the spam's getting through so easily because Core chose to embrace it - that's not a reason to berate Knots.
Imposing an unnecessary and unpopular change has been Core's initiative, and pushing it through exposes the danger of too much dependence on Core. There's nothing wrong with node runners looking elsewhere.
Maybe in the end, this unwise decision will strengthen Bitcoin by inspiring more alternatives to Core, eliminating the monopoly.
you never gonna reply to any comments, what so ever? this is not how discussions happen.
Knots is the "Get the F* off my damn lawn you deranged pedo!" version a of Bitcoin node
Core's using their position of "authority" to shut down (or limit) discussion is exactly why people are moving to knots.
Mempools have always been more strict than consensus, nodes set the rules for the network. That's how Bitcoin has always worked. A fork is unnecessary and stupid. Miners deciding to break the rules set by nodes and route around them is a miner centralization issue. Datum fixes this.
>Mempools have always been more strict than consensus
I'm aware
>nodes set the rules for the network
nodes that find blocks set the rules
>Miners deciding to break the rules set by nodes and route around them is a miner centralization issue
you're retarded
I know you are, but what am I?
The problem is we can't have both flawless cbr and an effective policy.
As you improve one thing, you degrade the other and vice versa.
This is a trade-off and if we don't have a line, the holy grail of perfect cbr just becomes miner-driven development and policy becomes a facade, which opens the door to eroding it further.
What doesn't make sense in this, is that when miners first step out of policy, all of a sudden, we adjust the policy to them. As if a reduced propagation by a few hundred ms is now a valid ransom on node runners and we can't live with a little friction caused by misbehavior.
As if we can't handle using the existing and perfectly functioning fallback to fetch transactions.
Where this cbr pursuit further falls apart is that under desired conditions of having mining more decentralized, miner misbehavior becomes risky to _them_ as other miners gain an advantage because policy-compliant blocks propagate faster and therefore policy becomes more effective.
I get cbr, but the reaction is wrong, let miners take responsibility and take the risks, we can handle it.
Becoming nervous, shitcoiner?
Looks like you don't get it yet...
Keep talking, shitcoiner
#knotstr will win no matter what 7 you say
Nah, I knew what I wanted and I knew what tool would allow me to accomplish my goal with the least effort.
You're free to do what you want and I'm free to laugh 😂
I'm allowed to have fun 😊
#CoreCope #RunKnots
View quoted note →Shitcoiner your gonna have a plug when Core runs no one and your left in a no one wants me mode! Let’s go for broke Knots runners.
Pretty sure writing the prompt took far more than 30 secs and writing a simple rebuttal in plain English would have taken you actually just about 30 secs.
Typical shitcoiner crying people aren’t chosing his shill. You’re getting ratio’d, wake up and reevaluate yourself.
Roasting ain't crying. You see ratio, I see engagement from a successful roast 😊
Core runner here, but you are reacting exactly like fiat bros when looking at Bitcoiners right now. In case you didn't noticed.
I don't understand why running multiple client is not a good thing overall. People should just chill a bit.
The discussion ended months ago.
As a non bitcoiner I understand about 3 in 5 words of your roast, but it’s a nice intro into what could be a rabbit hole ❤️
Running a #knots node is a thankless job. But a lot of us are happy to do it. Not because we know anything about #bitcoin nodes. But because you chose to start censoring people who ask questions.
Just for you
