Bitcoin Knobs Fresh Take on Bitcoin Software

Bitcoin Knobs is a fresh version of Bitcoin that lets users tweak their nodes just how they want. Unlike the Core or Knots versions, it offers more freedom to adjust various settings, which means you can dive into some advanced configurations that other clients might not let you touch. I'm curious, what do you all think about this new way of running Bitcoin?

It's a fork of Bitcoin Knots, cut out from bitcoinknots/bitcoin:29.x-knots branch. I dislike the name a lot and I find it wrong that they just changed a character from Bitcoin Knots to Bitcoin Knobs. In general, I, personally, won't pay too much attention to it, unless it's proven worth my time. But it's obvious and the forum knows that more and more implementations will appear in the future. I'm still a Bitcoin Core user and I'm not thinking about switching with the current implementations that exist. I prefer tuning my own Bitcoin Core implementation with some lines of code, than switching to an implementation that I don't trust more than Bitcoin Core.

The name is not bad to me and knob meaning makes it a good name. As for me, I like freedom and I also like decentralization so much. If there is another full node called Bitcoin Knob, there is nothing bad in that at all because bitcoin network needs to be very decentralized. If Bitcoin Core developers are doing something that will provoke the node runners or miners, the node runners and miners can join another full client instead.

Sure! There are completely independent node implementations that you can also check: 1. btcd 2. Floresta

I wouldn't try running it since, 1. I'm not familiar with this TABConf group. 2. There's no list of configurations we could make (that isn't available on Bitcoin Core or Knots). IMO https://github.com/piotrnar/gocoin is most independent node implementation out there, since it's written and maintained only by one person for more than a decade. I never recommend it through, since it load entire UTXO on RAM.

I haven't done any research/due diligence on "Knobs" yet, but that sort of reminded me of Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Clashic right after the block size debate. "Knobs" probably is a fork done on Knots to troll the filter boys. I don't think the "developers" of "Knobs" intend to maintain the software long-term, nor would a community of open source developers actually gather behind it.

Actually, Bitcoin core is the true decentralize node, the rest are trying to centralized transactions by filtering some certain type of transactions. Bitcoin knot and Knob share some similarities but knob gives you free hand to tweak your node and be more strict with the type of transactions you want to receive and relay to your peers. Here, Bitcoin core is through decentralization, they don't filter anything, you have to receive it as they are been relayed. If Bitcoin that were stolen and hacked from exchanges in the past were filtered and not relay by some nodes, I don't think we will be talking about decentralization now. The network doesn't recognize what is this and the content inside inside whether it's blue or black. If Bitcoin core start to filter transactions of certain type, who knows what is going to be requested tomorrow to be filter out, it will turn to a strict network and that is not Bitcoin is about. If you want censorship resistance, filtering transaction isn't the best. Maybe there is other ways but we haven't figure it out yet. Filtering transaction is a least probblem of miners, they are going to accept any transactions IMO, they get paid for every byte; I don't think they will take a side in this fight. The major concern here is the node, they don't get paid yet they dedicate some of their time, storage and power to secure the network. They are the main fight in this transactions relay, the funny thing about this fight is both core, knot and knob nodes all have to keep every block with arbitrary data unless you are running a prune transaction.

Yeah I think miners won't like it when you censor tx as they ideally have a big mempool to pick highest paying tx from. Makes me wonder, would miners start to block Knots/Knobs or more losely configurable nodes so their peers only exist on "legit" nodes that do feed them all tx? Giving a slight disadvantage to these Knots/Knobs nodes?

The longevity of Bitcoin network lies with what miners are going to take home, as the block reward is depreciate, they have to rely on fees as the only incentives and now, this is one of the means to make money without relying on block rewards for long term. However, the consequences is what I fear, this is a big opportunity for them to pocket million of sats but who bears the cost of storage, it's unfair to nodes. Amidst this node war, we can't say for sure if this is going to change anything. We can only hope they do as it's projected. The spammers will eventually get tired, this phase will be forgotten except if we have some people that want to start a vector attack to prove they are right about their opinion with this node policy. Miners will be the one smiling though.

I don't think the word Knobs is being used in this context to indicate a dummy, but rather in the sense of control panel switches which can be adjusted. Unless the README or the maintainer's social media posts are clearly provocative, in which the other meaning could be implied.

The answer to that will only be given if there are technical people who can see the development of this software, review the changes and see if it's an honest effort to do something good, or just a "troll" attempt. I'll let the more technical people do that, not that I don't understand the code, but as I said, I don't have a lot of time to put effort in understanding bitcoin knobs and how it differs from bitcoin knots. Besides, I still use Core, so...

Because of the name of the project alone, personally, it could be a troll attempt. Plus the term "KNOB" could also mean a stupid, annoying person. It could also mean that a person is a "dick" - depending in the context or how the word is used.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not a very technical person, but could actually change "in the code" except for minor configurations that are allowed in Knobs that are disabled in Knots?

Is this a serious effort? The name sounds like it could be a parody. Were they trying to be funny by calling it Knobs? At least they didn't call it Bitcoin Noobs. But if it is serious then that is a good thing. We should have more options and choices not less. Core has too much of a monopoly over the network IMO creating a vulnerability and single point of failure. We should have more decentralization not less.

I'm thinking its just a joke as there is no actual release for the software. That and the way that its described in the GitHub, which is humorous instead of technical. Its a pretty funny troll move however that seemed to work fairly well on X. I suppose there is still a chance they might actually put out a release, however: Even if they did, it would be a mistake to trust coins with it, and they seem to agree with that in the README, lol.

Dumb name lol Like, I've always used it as a pejorative ala............. Hey, what a knob!!!

The thing you're missing is that both knobs and knots are both jokes, the difference is that in one of them the author is in on the joke.

Of course. Because people should use them in a different way. Instead of just downloading binaries, they should fork it, build it from source code, make their own improvements, and submit pull requests. Which means, that instead of just Bitcoin Core, and Bitcoin Knots, there should be one fork per user, where every node operator can reuse the same "base code", and add its own features on top of it (which would be compatible with consensus rules). The main problem with Luke, is that he pushes commits manually, which makes auditing the code hard. But: the fact, that he does it wrong, doesn't mean, that it cannot be done better. This is how Core should be used: https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin https://github.com/glozow/bitcoin https://github.com/fanquake/bitcoin https://github.com/ismaelsadeeq/bitcoin https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/ Every skilled user should fork it, build it from the source code, and all differences between the Core, and some custom version, should be visible. Then, it would be serious. Of course, some non-programmers can use the official version from Core, but for users with technical skills, that should not be the default. Some article about it: https://blog.lopp.net/knot-a-serious-project/

A joke of a hit piece. He even quotes Gavin Andersen who considered luke-jr and it turned out that Andersen betrayed Bitcoin in several ways, up to the point of vouching for faketoshi. Outstanding authority.   That people are willing to run Knots or even this joke Knobs in spite of everything that is being written about luke-jr tells a great deal more about Bitcoin Core. If they were mildly disappointed by them, even small controversies and issues could get them to back off from running Knots. Instead, many users feel deeply betrayed by Bitcoin Core that they gladly switched over to Bitcoin Knots despite all of the things as shown in the article. Lopp should spend his time actually building something useful instead of this nonsense, useless leech. It looks like a really desperate attempt to get people to back off from Knots.

I read it and Lopp does get overly personal... He also brought up some valid criticisms, however, and the main takeaway is that Knots is overly reliant on a single person. As a Knots supporter, I'm just curious: do you think enough people would use a Knots fork coin to make it valuable, or is that off the table in terms of negotiations with Core? I'm trying to get an assessment of what Knots users think about this subject.

Sure, why not. We have the whole altcoins like Ethereum. We have test networks, which are no longer worthless. Expect everything from crypto people. If one day, someone would deploy "the SPAM protocol", which would allow pushing up to 4 MB transactions through unused Segwit versions, then I expect many spammers will join it. Negotiations? We are in P2P world. Anyone can take the source code of Bitcoin Core, make its own changes, and use its own client. The problem with Luke, is that his code is hard to audit, because you cannot clearly get for example the difference between his version, and the official one. You have to dig it, commit by commit, and compare it manually, because instead of pulling Core changes, and making their own, on top of it, he manually pulls the content, alters it, and pushes it to the repo, without preserving information, who changed what in Core. In 99% cases, they simply don't care, and blindly follow Luke's changes. Which is different than in Core, because otherwise, you would have more contributors visible in Knots. But you can see mainly Luke, and nobody else, as a commit author. And the fact, that people, who would like to make any changes, are sent back to Core, and make them there, to see them imported in both clients, only makes the situation worse for Knots, because then, you can see less contributors, than you could, if Luke would import changes correctly. Even altcoins, which are based on Bitcoin Core, are easier to audit, because then, at least you know, how a given altcoin was made, and how to update it, if needed. For example: https://github.com/cpuchain/cpuchain/commits/master/ See? You have a CPU-mined altcoin. It is very far from being serious. But at least you can audit it easier than Knots, because you can see, what Core changed, and what altcoin creators added. You can compare these changes. You can check all differences between Core, and this altcoin. And you can see Core contributions, that are not altered, and pushed as "created by altcoin maker X". How the Knots' history looks like: How it should look like: See the difference? In the first case, you know, that Luke is the author, but you don't know, what he changed, and what he just pulled from Core, and pushed with his name as the commit author. You don't know, where he simply imported things from Core, and where he decided to alter something. It is hard to audit. There are no Pull Requests, where you could trace, what Luke changed, and how, and easily revert the whole feature, while keeping everything else, as it is. So, my criticism is not social, like "what people should use", but strictly technical, like "how to see, who changed what and where". In case of Knots, it is just harder to audit, than it should be. But it is Luke's problem, and his followers, not mine, if they want to fix it, and how. Edit: By the way: when it comes to alternative clients, then this is what got my attention recently: https://hornetnode.org/paper.html We will see, how exactly they will deploy it, but I donated some coins there, because it looks promising. But time will tell, what they will deliver in practice.