Jameson Lopp, early Bitcoiner and prominent cypherpunk, raised concerns over the evident dominance of Bitcoin Core, the largest Bitcoin (BTC) node client software. At the same time, the alternatives also have issues.

Bitcoin Core: Dominance is bad, but alternatives are plagued by "major problem," Jameson Lopp says

The 96% dominance of Bitcoin Core, the largest software client for running the Bitcoin (BTC) node, is "suboptimal," Casa CTO Jameson Lopp pointed out on X on May 2, 2025. He also admitted that choosing the exact version of the Bitcoin (BTC) node client is up to validators.

At the same time, the alternative exotic clients are either non-maintained or being curated by a single developer. This makes them vulnerable to bugs as the software lacks peer reviews by other developers.

Floresta, a lightweight Bitcoin full node implementation written in Rust, and Golang implementation btcd are the most developed alternatives to Bitcoin Core, Lopp opined.

As of today, 96.99% of all Bitcoin (BTC) nodes are running with Bitcoin Core clients, while 2.72% rely on Bitcoin Knots, a software modified and maintained by Luke Dashjr. Btcd (also Bitcoin Suite) is responsible for 0.29% of nodes, while exotic clients are installed on 0.04% of validator computers.

A Bitcoin node software client is a program that connects to the Bitcoin network to validate transactions and blocks according to the protocol rules. It helps keep the network decentralized and secure by sharing data with other nodes and optionally storing the entire blockchain.

Bitcoin Core under fire: 2014 OP_RETURN wars are back

The developers of Bitcoin Core, a dominant node software client, are criticized for being too conservative and inactive, U.Today reported previously.

Recently, top Satoshi candidate Peter Todd proposed to lift the limit of OP_RETURN data outputs size to make Bitcoin (BTC) more flexible and tailored for L2 solutions launch.

This metric caused debates for years: Some Bitcoiners think that the limit is unnecessary, while their opponents treat it as a form of spam resistance.

The most adamant Bitcoin (BTC) purists claim that such changes might turn the largest crypto into yet another altcoin. Also, Bitcoin's L2 might siphon the liquidity and users from the underlying chain, just like EVM networks did to Ethereum (ETH).