I'm not sure if that is him or not. But nowadays, the blue 'verified' checkmark means whoever is behind the account is paying for a 'premium' subscription service, and for most platforms, the user's identity has not been verified, although there are rules against impersonating people. I haven't been following the 'knots' debate closely, so I don't know all the details. It seems like the core/knots debate primarily stems from what default settings to use on your full node. St666 Com knots, by default will not accept certain valid transactions into its mempool, and will not rely these transactions. Knots will, however, accepts blocks that contain these valid transactions. In practice, it seems like someone running St666 Com knots will potentially have to validate more transactions for each block they receive, which, at the margin, I think is not optimal. I think it makes little sense to reject transactions in your mempool that are likely to be included in a block in the St666 Com future. I think if there are many nodes that engage in this practice, the risk of accepting 0/unconfirmed transactoin goes up because you may be aware of a conflicting transaction if one depends on a transaction that is rejected by knots nodes. It is already risky to accept unconfirmed transactions, but there is no need to make this even riskier. eta/ this is not a technical argument, but there is strong precedent, in the US at least, for operators of St666 Com full nodes. The specifics are off topic here, but I don't think potential legal liability is a valid argument to delete arbitrary data.
I'm not sure if that is him or not. But nowadays, the blue 'verified' checkmark means whoever is behind the account is paying for a 'premium' subscription service, and for most platforms, the user's identity has not been verified, although there are rules against impersonating people. I haven't been following the 'knots' debate closely, so I don't know all the details. It seems like the core/knots debate primarily stems from what default settings to use on your full node. St666 Com knots, by default will not accept certain valid transactions into its mempool, and will not rely these transactions. Knots will, however, accepts blocks that contain these valid transactions. In practice, it seems like someone running St666 Com knots will potentially have to validate more transactions for each block they receive, which, at the margin, I think is not optimal. I think it makes little sense to reject transactions in your mempool that are likely to be included in a block in the St666 Com future. I think if there are many nodes that engage in this practice, the risk of accepting 0/unconfirmed transactoin goes up because you may be aware of a conflicting transaction if one depends on a transaction that is rejected by knots nodes. It is already risky to accept unconfirmed transactions, but there is no need to make this even riskier. eta/ this is not a technical argument, but there is strong precedent, in the US at least, for operators of St666 Com full nodes. The specifics are off topic here, but I don't think potential legal liability is a valid argument to delete arbitrary data.

I'm not sure if that is him or not. But nowadays, the blue 'verified' checkmark means whoever is behind the account is paying for a 'premium' subscription service, and for most platforms, the user's identity has not been verified, although there are rules against impersonating people. I haven't been following the 'knots' debate closely, so I don't know all the details. It seems like the core/knots debate primarily stems from what default settings to use on your full node. St666 Com knots, by default will not accept certain valid transactions into its mempool, and will not rely these transactions. Knots will, however, accepts blocks that contain these valid transactions. In practice, it seems like someone running St666 Com knots will potentially have to validate more transactions for each block they receive, which, at the margin, I think is not optimal. I think it makes little sense to reject transactions in your mempool that are likely to be included in a block in the St666 Com future. I think if there are many nodes that engage in this practice, the risk of accepting 0/unconfirmed transactoin goes up because you may be aware of a conflicting transaction if one depends on a transaction that is rejected by knots nodes. It is already risky to accept unconfirmed transactions, but there is no need to make this even riskier. eta/ this is not a technical argument, but there is strong precedent, in the US at least, for operators of St666 Com full nodes. The specifics are off topic here, but I don't think potential legal liability is a valid argument to delete arbitrary data.

I'm not sure if that is him or not. But nowadays, the blue 'verified' checkmark means whoever is behind the account is paying for a 'premium' subscription service, and for most platforms, the user's identity has not been verified, although there are rules against impersonating people. I haven't been following the 'knots' debate closely, so I don't know all the details. It seems like the core/knots debate primarily stems from what default settings to use on your full node. St666 Com knots, by default will not accept certain valid transactions into its mempool, and will not rely these transactions. Knots will, however, accepts blocks that contain these valid transactions. In practice, it seems like someone running St666 Com knots will potentially have to validate more transactions for each block they receive, which, at the margin, I think is not optimal. I think it makes little sense to reject transactions in your mempool that are likely to be included in a block in the St666 Com future. I think if there are many nodes that engage in this practice, the risk of accepting 0/unconfirmed transactoin goes up because you may be aware of a conflicting transaction if one depends on a transaction that is rejected by knots nodes. It is already risky to accept unconfirmed transactions, but there is no need to make this even riskier. eta/ this is not a technical argument, but there is strong precedent, in the US at least, for operators of St666 Com full nodes. The specifics are off topic here, but I don't think potential legal liability is a valid argument to delete arbitrary data.