The biggest difference to me between core and knots camps is time preference. Knots node runners want to see bitcoin succeed for hundreds of years, more and more decentralized. Core doesn't really give a fuck about node runners. They dont care if they ask them to do illegal things with their computers. They care more about miners and shitcoin companies. What camp do you want to trust? What camp will want larger blocks in the future? What camp will try to allow tail emissions for miners? -Core. Run Knots.

Wow a 3 month Lopp guarantee on bitcoin not immediately failing?! Us pleb node runners want to see bitcoin working in 150-300 years. Not three months. Stop prioritizing shitcoiners and miners and maybe bitcoin will last long. Running knots.

You took the whole conversation and twisted it out of context, you little click bait fake news merchant.

If forking bitcoin here, I would just drop the blocksize for knots. Prioritize knots nodes with smaller blocks. Prioritize knots nodes with no blantant CSAM. My guess is less blocksize would increase total fees to more than 4mb blocks now. (More competitive fee environment) It could help incentivize miners to the knots chain. No committee having to block CSAM. 2MB knots bitcoin as money chain vs. 4MB core CP retard jpeg chain. Lets see what happens.

This is EXACTLY what central bankers say about the people who use and trust their worthless fiat. Just replace the word bitcoin with dollar. This is how retarded he thinks bitcoiners are.

Im all for a fork. These different ideological camps will have to at some point. Not forking is only delaying the inevitable in my opinion. How many core nodes are claiming they "just wont update"? (They are saying they dont ideologically agree with core right now just too lazy to do something about it.) How many individuals would still run a core node if the network forks and their chain has CP littered in blocks? If one node runner gets arrested and charged? My guess is very few people would.

You sound salty.

Thank you for not addressing a single concern. Im sure there are many more people who would love to see bitcoin fail. To me knots supports are looking at this objectively and very concerned at preserving this lifeboat *because* people in high places want bitcoin dead. Core supports are giving enemies of bitcoin a loaded rifle to come at it legally and morally.

If regulatory institutions (fuck them) are gonna make cases against tornado cash, Samouri, and other mixing services for laundering money. Then this situation should suffice for the charges of CP. The devs of mixers didnt necessarily launder money they wrote code that aided the behavior. Same goes here.

Gotcha, I run one and am very proud to feel like I help contribute to bitcoins decentralization. However if this goes how I think it will, I definitely will consider unplugging it in the future. Is there anything that can be done before this all goes down? Fork or something?

??? What is that proving? Answer the question.

Core has lost the plot. They dont care about nodes. They dont care at all about the community. If they release this delusional update and the chain gets littered with CP. THEY should be legally held responsible for distribution and storage of CP. Not node runners. Them.

So why wouldn't we open up the doors to anyone not thinking economically? No one would ever use bitcoin in a malicious manner attempting to discredit the protocol and morally corrupt all actors...

I wonder how long it will take those freaks with fringe interests to realize they can send kiddie porn JPEGS over bitcoin once you force op_return open. Fuck you.

Nah, I run Knots

Correct me if im wrong, but yes certain tools are required (now). But after v30 and with data in the op_return you won't need "certain tools" at all. It will be right there in your face.

I really don't understand this take. If v30 gets released and opens op-return to anything. Do you really believe people won't put malicious JPEGs in there just to paint bitcoin in a negative light? If they do, do you think there will be more or less full nodes in 5-10 years? If bitcoins full node count isnt going up, is it safe to say that bitcoins protocol is becoming less decentralized and therefore... failing over time? How can a protocol gain the economic trust of individuals when it is slowly failing? And I do think, yes, bitcoin will still work, this won't do anything from a technical standpoint. It will only hurt the incentive to run a full node. Just genuine questions I have.

How many people will run full nodes once they are littered with CSAM JPEGS? You really think bitcoin will be more decentralized if you have to store and propagate blantant CP to contribute to the decentralized nature of the protocol? Genuine question

How does this not boil down to: allowing unnecessary shitcoiner bullshit on bitcoin while potentially sacrificing the long term decentralized nature of this protocol?

A million pruned nodes and one full node is not a decentralized network.