(Headline article below) A relatively decent article on the huge controversy impacting Bitcoin and its future. A big part of Bitcoin is the software being run on nodes, and anyone who really values the technology runs their own node. With the blockchain under 1 TB, anyone can run a node with a Raspberry Pi and a 1TB drive, with a 2 TB drive giving you more headroom. This is all to allow normal people to run nodes, as the first major attack on Bitcoin was by Roger Ver and his backers trying to blow up the blockchain with much larger blocks, but they failed and their fork kind of went nowhere. This would have led to only major Bitcoin companies running servers with the necessary drive space required, with control of what software is run for the network being removed from normal users. Bitcoin would have been compromised and become a centralized tool of corporations in the space instead of a means of exchange for regular people to enjoy. Also, running a node lets you verify blocks and transactions, while giving you privacy with the network by not giving up data to possibly nefarious nodes. And it would seem the current Bitcoin Core devs trying to allow more data and spam transactions are part of another attack on node runners and the network, as they’ve been enticed by financial gains and betrayed their users. And you can tell by the deception they employ while lacking actual logical arguments for what they’re proposing.
And one quibble, Bitcoin Knots was created to give users more configuration control of their nodes including filters for spam transactions. It wasn’t really there to keep Bitcoin Core in check, as it’s really just Bitcoin Core with patches by Luke Dashjr (legendary Bitcoin OG dev with integrity), probably per his own needs. Though, because of this controversy, some more developers are joining with Luke Dashjr and Bitcoin Knots, and Bitcoin Core could be causing their own downfall as Bitcoin Knots grows into a legitimate replacement which might influence the future of Bitcoin with more users migrating to Bitcoin Knots. Consequently, I’ve switched my nodes to Bitcoin Knots and are no longer relaying spam transactions, and if you care about the future of Bitcoin you should investigate this further and possibly switch as well. Or chime in by running your own Bitcoin Node.
And a major point, the purpose of Bitcoin is to be a protocol of financial exchange, so we don’t need other use cases on the blockchain though some have minimal impact and are allowed. But trashy graphics and other garbage taking up block space are unwelcome, impact transaction transmission, raise fees for transactions… So it’s not censorship to filter this trash from the network, as it’s really an infringement against users of Bitcoin by unscrupulous opportunists looking to make money off the name of Bitcoin. I’m actually hoping this does lead to further confrontation leading to the removal of the compromised Bitcoin Core Devs, who need to go, or the collapse of the entire Bitcoin Core operation. As there is a good chance those that value what Bitcoin was supposed to be, an exit to the trash fiat financial systems exploiting the world, will win this battle by running the freedom respecting Bitcoin monetary exchange protocol software that respects their users.
https://news.bitcoin.com/knots-revolt-nearly-4000-nodes-aim-to-defy-bitcoin-cores-new-rules/
By Jamie Redman
Over the past two months, debate has flared over Bitcoin Knots as an alternative to Bitcoin Core, with tensions building ahead of the Core v30 release (planned for Oct. 2025). The update removes certain data caps, drawing criticism for allowing more non-financial entries often described as “spam.”
The Great Bitcoin Client Divide
At its core, the Bitcoin Core versus Bitcoin Knots clash revolves around removing the 80-byte OP_RETURN data cap in Core v30. Core advocates say the change boosts flexibility, but Knots supporters argue it invites spam and threatens Bitcoin’s neutrality, fueling sharp divisions. In response, Knots adoption has swelled as users protest what they see as a drift from Bitcoin’s monetary mission.
In mid-June, Bitcoin.com News reported on the Knots’ momentum, noting it made up 12% of the network’s nodes. Fast forward to Aug. 19, 2025, and that share has risen to 17.12%. Back on June 16, Knots counted 2,673 nodes; today it boasts 3,914, while Core nodes have dipped to 18,900.
Since June 16, Knots adoption has climbed 46.41%, while Core nodes slipped by 1.49%. Meanwhile, the debate has taken center stage on X, dominating discussions as nearly everyone weighs in with their perspective. For instance, the operator of the open-source, user-friendly Bitcoin node package Parmanode stated, “Parmanode runs Bitcoin Knots by default. It’s possible to run Bitcoin Core if you must.”
The X account added:
“Version 30 will not be supported. If you want that, install it yourself, you’re not going to use my software to do it.”
Casey Rodarmor, the creator of Bitcoin’s Ordinal Theory, offered a different take. “It’s going to be so funny when a bug in Knots causes a consensus break and nobody notices when they fork off the network because they’re not economically relevant,” Rodarmor wrote. Critics pushed back on Rodarmor, arguing that Ordinals is nothing more than an exploit.
“Has fantasising about farking dogs rotted your brain?” one person responded to Rodarmor’s statement on X. “You’ve already identified the bug & instead chose to exploit it. Crystal clear consensus break (non technical def).” For many, Knots is seen as a saving grace.
“Knots is a historic clone of the Bitcoin Core software, designed to keep an independent copy ready and running when the Core software devs start running amok, threatening bitcoin,” one X user opined. “That’s more or less what’s happening in a nutshell. Knots has become relevant now, a safeguard.”
The debate over Knots’ role reveals a broader struggle about Bitcoin’s future—whether it remains a neutral settlement system or evolves into a canvas for wider experimentation. The outcome could shape governance models, node diversity, and the community’s trust in development paths.
What happens next may determine Bitcoin’s resilience against internal division. As developers, node operators, and users stake their ground, the network faces a critical test: balancing innovation with fidelity to its monetary roots while navigating growing ideological and technical rifts.