The battle between Bitcoiners supporting two versions of full node software, Knots and Core version 30, has reached fever pitch.
This weekend, anti-Knots influencer CalleBTC described Knots as a “clown show” and claimed that 90% of Knots nodes were “fake.”
He also amplified doubts about Knots statistics held by Bitcoin contributors Adam Back and Sergei Delgado, and repeatedly likened the size of the Knots community to an embarrassingly small penis.
Last Tuesday, Core v30 supporters claimed that Knots trackers were double-counting approximately 40% of nodes to convey an undeserved sense of popularity. On Saturday, more pro-Core influencers escalated their analysis, reducing their estimate to 2.6% dominance across the Bitcoin network.
Pro-Knots influencers countered with talk of a 10X dominance rate estimate equating to 23.8% of the Bitcoin network.
Over the weekend, Knots leader Bitcoin Mechanic claimed the use of ASmap to discredit Knots in this way was “obviously nonsense,” called 2.6% dominance estimates untrue, and offered a distinct explanation for a temporary anomaly in Knots detection.
How long does a fence deter trespassing?
Knots disagrees with an accommodation in Core v30 for data storage unrelated to the on-chain movement of bitcoin (BTC).
For the first time in history, v30 will increase its mempool’s default datacarrier limit for OP_RETURN from less than 90 bytes to approximately 100,000 bytes. Knots will retain the prior data cap as a deterrent to arbitrary data storage. Core v30 will increase it by default.
This disagreement has earned a working title of Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN War.
In essence, Knots argues that v30 has acquiesced to corporate interests for data storage unrelated to Bitcoin’s purpose as a non-fiat financial system.
In contrast, Core v30 proponents argue that arbitrary data storage is unstoppable, as spammers will continually invent new encoding practices to bypass filters.
Knots likens the effectiveness of the OP_RETURN data cap to a fence. Albeit imperfect, a fence deters most trespassing despite the ability of determined trespassers to hop over.
Supporters of Core v30, meanwhile, believe that the demand for arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin will persist. As storage tactics increase in complexity and fervor, spammers will figuratively knock down the fence entirely.
Read more: Cøbra warns that Knots could threaten Core’s reference status
Knots wants to keep the filter that Core views as increasingly ineffective
Many Core maintainers liken the request to playing whack-a-mole against spammers. Unless the network agrees to fork its non-mempool consensus rules to categorically limit the amount of data in any form — OP_RETURN or elsewhere — many Core maintainers believe it’s outside the scope of a reference client to insist on one, circumventable deterrent.
“We believe it is better for Bitcoin node software to aim to have a realistic idea of what will end up in the next block,” 31 senior contributors to Bitcoin Core wrote in June, “rather than attempting to intervene between consenting transaction creators and miners in order to discourage activity that is largely harmless.”
On Saturday, Luke Dashjr, lead maintainer of Knots, claimed that was hypocritical. He noted that Core enforces many other types of data filters, such as limiting TRUC and ephemeral dust.
On Saturday, Back posted a backhanded compliment about Dashjr, complimenting his resilience from peer pressure.
At the same time, he warned Knots users that Dashjr’s disposition will create “near CERTAINTY this will bite you all.”
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Source: https://protos.com/bitcoin-core-versus-knots-disagreements-go-parabolic/