Knots on bitcoin.org

[cellard]

Can anyone explain the latest events on this and why this is even controversial?

Bitcoin Knots complies with current consensus rules, so do other clients like Libbitcoin or whatever that was called (the by Amir Taaki I think). I don't see a problem with these being hosted there but it should be clear that they are secondary to Bitcoin Core, just list Bitcoin Core first, then list the alternative clients, and aware people that for example Knots contains experimental stuff. As long as they follow current consensus rules (1MB blocks etc) I don't see where the problem is. A node is a node and it strengthens the network (again, as long as it's a Bitcoin node and not some fork).

[achow101]

What happened was that Cobra, one of the Bitcoin.org domain co-owners, pushed a blog post to Bitcoin.org without a Pull Request. This means that he did it without consulting the contributors to the project and there was no review of the post itself. This action itself was controversial. The commit was reverted later because it had been done unilaterally without anyone else's consent.

The other problem isn't so much that Knots would be hosted there but rather that Bitcoin.org would be promoting Knots instead of Core. Knots, while based on Core, has experimental things merged and does not have as much review. There are also a few other controversial changes such as address blacklists that luke-jr implemented in it himself.