Edelweiss🏔️'s Posts
More on the (Bitcoin) Knots fight
Posted about 1 year ago
'Then they fight you'
Read on X from @Dennis_Porter_ and in the replies
In case you didn't notice folks
There is a war going on outside
A financial war
And it's being fought digitally
Think Kodak trying to kill off digital cameras
#RunKnots
This is a serious fight. Nodes should not be storing/broadcasting spam
Move to Knots - Your node will be faster and store less trash
Read on X from @Dennis_Porter_ and in the replies
In case you didn't notice folks
There is a war going on outside
A financial war
And it's being fought digitally
Think Kodak trying to kill off digital cameras
#RunKnots
This is a serious fight. Nodes should not be storing/broadcasting spam
Move to Knots - Your node will be faster and store less trash
The fight for continued decentralization / Bitcoin Core's plans...
Posted about 1 year ago
Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr on X weighs in on why Core's ideas will lead to more spam less decentralization in the network. Nodes / Node runners are important and need to run software which combats spam to keep data bandwidth low and cheap see below.
My node runs Knots...
'The goals of transaction relay listed are basically all wrong. Predicting what will be mined is a centralizing goal. Expecting spam to be mined is defeatism. Helping spam propagate is harmful.
This OPED contradicts itself, presenting out of band relay as both negative and also "an important aspect of Bitcoin’s censorship resistance"
It ignores the lack of consent to spam by users/node operators, giving deference to the attackers and the malicious miners who might conspire with them.
It paints spam as "largely harmless", when the truth is the exact opposite. It treats abuse of the blockchain and nodes as legitimate "use cases" rather than the DoS attacks they actually are, and speaks of DoS attacks as if they were something distinct, thus implying spam isn't the same (which it is).
The OPED presents itself as aligned with "Bitcoin’s long-term health" which is objectively false, and "miners’ rational self-interest" which is also at least debatably false.'
My node runs Knots...
'The goals of transaction relay listed are basically all wrong. Predicting what will be mined is a centralizing goal. Expecting spam to be mined is defeatism. Helping spam propagate is harmful.
This OPED contradicts itself, presenting out of band relay as both negative and also "an important aspect of Bitcoin’s censorship resistance"
It ignores the lack of consent to spam by users/node operators, giving deference to the attackers and the malicious miners who might conspire with them.
It paints spam as "largely harmless", when the truth is the exact opposite. It treats abuse of the blockchain and nodes as legitimate "use cases" rather than the DoS attacks they actually are, and speaks of DoS attacks as if they were something distinct, thus implying spam isn't the same (which it is).
The OPED presents itself as aligned with "Bitcoin’s long-term health" which is objectively false, and "miners’ rational self-interest" which is also at least debatably false.'