Isn't it better to have as many nodes as possible? A lot of people in Bitcoin Knots (myself included) that found out how Core dealed with this whole thing to be the wrong way did not sign up for a hardfork adventure. As long as the Bitcoin Knots version is compatible with the original chain then that is yet another point of decentralization. I value as many full copies of the blockchain as possible in different jurisdictions and different parties to be the most valuable thing if we would make a ranking of what helps the blockchain to stay safe. If people want to run experiments of filtering transactions that's not a big deal compared to seeing less and less full nodes. I reckon incentivizing people by using assumevalid by default is a bigger problem than any of this.
Knots is no different from core.
All luke did was take core and make his own tweaks to it. So, unlike running other node software knots is at it's core just core with changes. No pun intended.
And very soon unless luke or someone does major work knots is going to be built from a version of core (29.x) that is no longer supported. since core and all of it's developers only support the current version which is going to be 32.x in a couple of months and 2 previous versions so 31.x and 30.x
So if some vulnerabilities are found in 29.x nothing is really going to be done to fix them from core's side. You will have to rely 100% on the knots team. Which as of now, according to github, is 1 person.
-Dave
