BitAxe Gamma 601 - 100% Hash Error Starting Firmware v2.14.1 & v2.14.2

[gmaxwell]

If you're mining on knots you'll likely be off mining a fork of Bitcoin with about 1% of bitcoin's hashpower that guts smart contracting functionality in the name of blocking spam, without actually blocking spam-- rather than Bitcoin 8 days from now.  You might want to get off knots before that.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Wonder if now that the OP turned RDTS on for a bit, will knots stop running again it he turns it off?

[DaveF]

Knots is an option in Umbrel you can install anything you want.
Core or knots.


So, yes if you run knots it's going to follow whatever arbitrary rules that luke puts in for that build.

-Dave

[NotFuzzyWarm]

That's what I thought. So for whatever reason the OP chose to install Knots instead of Core. Hope it was out of ignorance of Luke's evil plan...

Still puzzled that Knots did not by default signal RDTS support. Considering Knots is already censoring his blocks it makes no sense for it to not broadcast RDTS support from the gitgo. Leave it to Luke to let it run like that and then as Consesus day approaches make Knots stop with no message popping up as to why...

[DaveF]

That's what I thought. So for whatever reason the OP chose to install Knots instead of Core. Hope it was out of ignorance of Luke's evil plan...

Still puzzled that Knots did not by default signal RDTS support. Considering Knots is already censoring his blocks it makes no sense for it to not broadcast RDTS support from the gitgo. Leave it to Luke to let it run like that and then as Consesus day approaches make Knots stop with no message popping up as to why...

With luke you never know. Could just be another bug that knots introduced.
Did another quick check, if you go to install a pool with umbrel it asks you what back end node you want to use



So the OP had to choose knots. Why they did unless they tell us we will not know.

But, unless he changes to a supported node it's going to stop mining in 1073 blocks from when I made this post.

It's the internet, we are not your mom, we can give you advice but can't make you take it.

-Dave

[ohio_jaunt]

You are correct.  I am running Knots, largely because I just thought his argument for the blockchain was valid and it was the better decision versus core...that's besides the point.

YES, apparently Knots forces you to accept RDTS or it forces you offline.  Wild.

---

So, there's a literal fork coming?  That's like already been decided?  What are the two new tokens?  Before it was BTC and BTC Cash, now are we looking at something dumb like BTC Classic vs BTC?

[DaveF]

So, there's a literal fork coming?  That's like already been decided?  What are the two new tokens?  Before it was BTC and BTC Cash, now are we looking at something dumb like BTC Classic vs BTC?

That is a large rabbit hole to go down. The SHORT version these are FACTS you can see it in the code you can see the data anyone who says otherwise is not telling you the truth.:

1) As of the end of this difficulty period which is next Saturday sometime. KNOTS clients will stop accepting blocks that do not signal for BIP-110
2) As of *now* only about 24 of the last 950 blocks signaled support for 110 so about 2.5% give or take. [This signaling period and this is the highest it's ever been]
https://wickedsmartbitcoin.com/bip110_signaling
3) BIP-110 needs 55% to activate but KNOTS does not care about that as I said in point 1 it is hard coded to reject blocks that don't signal regardless of 110 activating.
4) The restrictions that knots puts in WILL censor many transactions that have nothing to do with spam. They might not be common transactions, but they do exist and are used daily.

These are opinions that most people agree on.

1) knots does nothing to stop spam.
2) once you start censoring any kind of transactions it's a slippery slope.
3) more then likely it will cause massive UTXO bloat since that is another way to put things in the blockchain that 110 does nothing about.
4) most of the hashrate in point 2 in the 1st section I posted is rented. So a large amount of 110 support is not owned by the miners. Take that as you will.

There are a bunch of discussions about it. Here and other places.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586638.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5583900.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5584529.0

All kind of say the same thing. 110 is going to fail hard and fork off. Unless someone changes the difficulty or mining algo it's going to go nowhere as a chain.
There are supporters but the math does not work for 110.

-Dave

[ohio_jaunt]

Tracking, that makes a lot of sense.  Thanks for the insight.  It's too bad, because I do think BTC should remain a store of value and not integrate the extra smart contract functionality aside from wrapping.  Leave Smart Contracts to Ethereum I say...but there's no point in messing up the network over a difference in opinion, so I'll probably push BTC Core Live again on the node and be done with it.  I just wish we went in a different direction, but that's just me...it's consensus for a reason.