Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 2
Last scraped
Scraped on 14/05/2025, 19:59:19 UTC
So my question is, now that Bitcoin Core is doing pretty questionable things such as removing OP_RETURN limit and rushing merging this thing up
Please stop spreading inaccurate information, the discussion shows lots of opposition to that PR where chance of it being merged is rather low.
should Bitcointalk support Bitcoin Knots now that it's picking up traction?
Considering Bitcoin Core is far too popular, promoting Bitcoin Knots or other full node software that remain active in development for long time is good idea.
--snip--
Why did you compare a Bitcoin wallet software with hardfork full node coins?
--snip--
Why did you compare a Bitcoin wallet software with hardfork full node coins?
--snip--
What? Can you tell us what kind of change done by Bitcoin Knots that would cause hard fork?
Chance of it being rather low is precisely because people are discussing it, which is the opposite of banning people from discussing it as they did with some known devs in the space on the Core github. Making this issue know would include adding it on the "News:" section. There is nothing inaccurate about anything I said.
I compared it to point it's not the same. You could argue promoting full node implementations that had a hard fork in mind on the "News:" section wouldn't be ok, but since this is not the case, then it should be ok to promote it.
So my question is, now that Bitcoin Core is doing pretty questionable things such as removing OP_RETURN limit and rushing merging this thing up
Please stop spreading inaccurate information, the discussion shows lots of opposition to that PR where chance of it being merged is rather low.
Opinions over the matter are even more lopsided now than when OP first posted his thread in Dev & Tech discussion. So I don't know why'd he's now saying Core is "rushing" to merge the change when there's an even smaller probability of it happening now than then.
Then:
Now:
A couple of other reasons why I can think not to do this are:
- even with a massive increase in users recently, Bitcoin Knots is still tremendously unpopular compared to Core, with only about 5% of total Bitcoin nodes running Knots.
- since the inception of the phrase "Bitcoin Core", Bitcointalk has always promoted that implementation of the software. It is the default standard and an official vouching of an alternative implementation could be dangerous.
What's dangerous is some crap eventually being added in Bitcoin Core and then having no viable alternative.
Version 1
Scraped on 07/05/2025, 20:29:28 UTC
So my question is, now that Bitcoin Core is doing pretty questionable things such as removing OP_RETURN limit and rushing merging this thing up
Please stop spreading inaccurate information, the discussion shows lots of opposition to that PR where chance of it being merged is rather low.
should Bitcointalk support Bitcoin Knots now that it's picking up traction?
Considering Bitcoin Core is far too popular, promoting Bitcoin Knots or other full node software that remain active in development for long time is good idea.
--snip--
Why did you compare a Bitcoin wallet software with hardfork full node coins?
--snip--
Why did you compare a Bitcoin wallet software with hardfork full node coins?
--snip--
What? Can you tell us what kind of change done by Bitcoin Knots that would cause hard fork?
Chance of it being rather low is precisely because people are discussing it, which is the opposite of banning people from discussing it as they did with some known devs in the space on the Core github. Making this issue know would include adding it on the "News:" section. There is nothing inaccurate about anything I said.
I compared it to point it's not the same. You could argue promoting full node implementations that had a hard fork in mind on the "News:" section wouldn't be ok, but since this is not the case, then it should be ok to promote it.
So my question is, now that Bitcoin Core is doing pretty questionable things such as removing OP_RETURN limit and rushing merging this thing up
Please stop spreading inaccurate information, the discussion shows lots of opposition to that PR where chance of it being merged is rather low.
Opinions over the matter are even more lopsided now than when OP first posted his thread in Dev & Tech discussion. So I don't know why'd he's now saying Core is "rushing" to merge the change when there's an even smaller probability of it happening now than then.
Then:
Now:
A couple of other reasons why I can think not to do this are:
- even with a massive increase in users recently, Bitcoin Knots is still tremendously unpopular compared to Core, with only about 5% of total Bitcoin nodes running Knots.
- since the inception of the phrase "Bitcoin Core", Bitcointalk has always promoted that implementation of the software. It is the default standard and an official vouching of an alternative implementation could be dangerous.
What's dangerous is some crap eventually being added in Bitcoin Core and then having no viable alternative.
Original archived Re: Should the forum support Bitcoin Knots as they do with Bitcoin Core?
Scraped on 07/05/2025, 19:59:24 UTC
So my question is, now that Bitcoin Core is doing pretty questionable things such as removing OP_RETURN limit and rushing merging this thing up
Please stop spreading inaccurate information, the discussion shows lots of opposition to that PR where chance of it being merged is rather low.
should Bitcointalk support Bitcoin Knots now that it's picking up traction?
Considering Bitcoin Core is far too popular, promoting Bitcoin Knots or other full node software that remain active in development for long time is good idea.
--snip--
Why did you compare a Bitcoin wallet software with hardfork full node coins?
--snip--
Why did you compare a Bitcoin wallet software with hardfork full node coins?
--snip--
What? Can you tell us what kind of change done by Bitcoin Knots that would cause hard fork?
Chance of it being rather low is precisely because people are discussing it, which is the opposite of banning people from discussing it as they did with some known devs in the space on the Core github. Making this issue know would include adding it on the "News:" section. There is nothing inaccurate about anything I said.
I compared it to point it's not the same. You could argue promoting full node implementations that had a hard fork in mind on the "News:" section wouldn't be ok, but since this is not the case, then it should be ok to promote it.