bitcoin-dot-org
Add Bitcoin Knots as a node software
Approved, not that it means anything. However, I did review the changes, don't see any issues, think this is a fair idea.
I will consider putting more effort into this depending on if @Cobra-Bitcoin wants to merge such PR.
Concept ACK
With 20% of the network using knots, it is worth adding on https://bitcoin.org an an alternative client.
I tried to have Knots more prominently featured on bitcoin.org many years ago so I have some history with this topic. I'm curious what the wallets maintainer @crwatkins thinks about this and also former contributor @harding who created a lot of bitcoin.org's promotional material for Bitcoin Core.
Bitcoin.org is perceived as Bitcoin's "official" site and the battle between Core and Knots seems intense right now. I'm concerned about sweeping changes to the content of the site being made to score political wins and not necessarily for the benefit of the users. This PR seems rushed and quickly thrown together, there is no justification for why these changes are being made, and saying you will only put more effort into this if you get confirmation it'll be merged doesn't sit well with me.
The timing on this is terrible. If we merge something like this it would give the impression bitcoin.org is very pro Knots (or at least trending in that direction). We don't even have an official response to the v30 controversy because we've been so badly burned in the past by Bitcoin politics so you can imagine PRs like this give me nightmares.
This pull request does not remove bitcoin core from the website. It adds an alternative.
I'm curious what [...] former contributor @harding who created a lot of bitcoin.org's promotional material for Bitcoin Core.
I feel the download and marketing pages for Bitcoin Core on Bitcoin.org are a historical artifact, due to the GitHub repo for this site being under Bitcoin Core control over a decade ago, rather than an actively maintained site feature. New releases and new project information for Bitcoin Core has been posted to BitcoinCore.org since 2016 (initially in addition to posting to Bitcoin.org, but later most Bitcoin Core project material material was exclusively posted to BitcoinCore.org).
I think it makes the most sense for every project to have its own independent site. Bitcoin.org can then link to those projects as its maintainers see fit, e.g. a page for full nodes can link to multiple implementations based on various criteria. This would give btcd, libbitcoin, librerelay, and other projects an equal shot at being listed alongside Core and Knots.
If it's perceived as excessively unfair that Bitcoin.org hosts Bitcoin Core material, then I would advocate removing that material rather than encouraging every node implementation to have separate pages on the site.
I agree with @harding above. The wallet listing is a curated list that meets fairly well established criteria with very simple descriptions (a maximum of 320 characters). It seems reasonable that the same model could apply to full nodes.
@Cobra-Bitcoin When do you think the right moment to merge this PR will be?
When do you think the right moment to merge this PR will be?
PR is incomplete in its current form (see my review above) and represents a solution that doesn't seem to align with the expectations of both current/former contributors (see above comments by Cobra, harding, and crwatkins).
