In its current version, this block explorer *does* need electrum, because that's where node_faker gets its block data from, which it passes to wild_explorer. However, I *could* make a version that talks directly to a real instance of bitcoind instead of node_faker. The would node would need txindex=1 enabled, but it could work. That said, there is already a project that's designed for that use case: https://github.com/janoside/btc-rpc-explorer -- so check that out if you're interested in an electrum-free block explorer

can you give an example of another type of node?

My two latest inventions are Node Faker, which simulates bitcoin-cli and bitcoind in the browser (via javascript), and Wild Explorer, which is a block explorer that talks to Node Faker to get its blockchain data https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAc4L7tSZMs For more info, see their respective githubs: Node Faker: https://github.com/supertestnet/node_faker Wild Explorer: https://github.com/supertestnet/wild_explorer

But why is that rule there in the first place? Answer: for moral reasons -- because doublespending enables fraud

> Nowhere did the white paper mention the word "fraud" It uses it three times

> Miners can do whatever for whatever reason Can they create more than 21 million bitcoins? No? Then they can't "do whatever for whatever reason." The consensus rules stop them. So node runners can modify their behavior by changing the consensus rules. > You might have thought framing it morally was cute or whatever, but its all practical Are you saying the consensus rules I listed are not there for moral reasons? If so, then why are they there? Why is there an anti-doublespend rule except to protect against fraud?

I am happy to discuss the effectiveness of spam limits in another thread. In this thread, my aim is to get consensus on this proposition: it's sometimes okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections Got a problem with that? Then you'll have to get rid of the 21 million cap, doublespend prevention, and proof of work. Because those all exist to block other people's transactions based on moral objections. So what do *you* think? Is it sometimes okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections?

No, I'm saying some of the technical specs, including the 21 million limit, exist to enforce an anti-inflationary system of monetary morals. Some people on the Core side argue that bitcoin should not block transactions if the reason for doing so is moral; if they were right, the 21 million limit should be dropped, because it exists to block inflationary transactions for moral reasons. Inflation is frequently used by governments to effectively steal from their populace by printing money without honest work, and that is bad, so such transactions are not allowed in bitcoin.

Are you saying it's possible to construe "fraud" as if it was a non-moral term? How so? In what sense is fraud ever not a moral thing (specifically, a very immoral thing)?

I oppose bip110 for that very reason, alongside some objections to how it handles OP_IF. But in this thread I am not trying to convince people to support bip110; I'm only trying to convince others to stop saying "BuT yOu'Re TrYiNg To EnFoRcE yOuR mOrAlItY" as if that's a no-no in bitcoin instead of a large part of why it exists.

(1) Justifying the existence of a system sounds like a value judgment (2) There are useful databases that allow for reprdering data. The stated motivation for doublespend prevention is not because it is "technically necessary" (I dont think it is) but rather to prevent fraud, which is itself a form of "morality policing" (3) The stated motivation for proof of work is to incentivize honesty, not to ensure the system is different from other BFT databases. Other BFT systems are permissioned. But one of the big problems with a permissioned monetary system is not technical but rather moral: dishonest parties might gain control of the system and use their power to allow some people to doublespend, i.e. to enable fraud. Having a pernissionless Proof of Work model incentivizes them to be honest instead. The choice to forego the permissioned route was not technically necessary (orher such systems ARE permissioned). It was a choice explicitly based on morality.

More insults and ad hominems from the core camp. Sad! But typical. When you have no arguments, use insults, eh?

I think it is okay to do this for Txs that are of a bad monetary nature For example, if someone creates coins outside of the mining protocol, I think it is okay to burn the newly created coins and block such a tx from happening again I also think that if someone creates a spam tx, it is okay to make their outputs unspendable and bloc such a tx from happening again But that's what I think. What do *you* think?

One of the best projects I made in the nwc space was my nwc tester: https://github.com/supertestnet/nwc_tester It lets nwc devs test their apps for compatibility with various nwc specs. I think it would be very cool to have a similar app for testing compatibility with various cashu nut specs: https://cashubtc.github.io/nuts/

The consensus rules have always been about morality One charge that's frequently levied at knotzis is that any attempt to reject spam at the consensus level is based on "moral" objections to spam transactions instead of "technical" objections. One problem with this argument is that *many* consensus rules are based on moral objections to potential transactions: - no doublespending? It's there to prevent "fraud" - the 21 million cap? It's there to block "inflation" - proof of work? It's there to ensure "honesty" Those are the words Satoshi used to motivate the "rules and incentives...enforced [via bitcoin's] consensus mechanism" (the bitcoin whitepaper), and I think they resonate with many of us. So yeah, "spam is illegitimate" is a moral claim. And if we enforce it, it will be one of several moral claims enforced at the consensus level. Because that's what bitcoin is for: to create a monetary system that is fundamentally *more moral* (in certain ways) than the alternatives. Spam limits, if they become consensus, are just more moral bricks in the wall.

It seems to have about 12 active developers who deliberately contribute to it That is a lot different from having 1 such developer, but it's still not enough to be safe imo It is also good that much of the code is the same as what's in Core, it means a lot of the review effort put into Core helps Knots too

> Are morals objective in this proposal? As objective as the other morals enforced in the consensus rules, such as the anti-doublespend rule, the supply cap, and the proof of work requirement To me, asking "What if the spam limits lose consensus in the future" is similar to asking "What if the 21 million cap loses consensus in the future"? I think that would be a bad thing, and I would advocate for restoring it