pull down to refresh
You seem to think that when the signaling threshold is reached everyone would fall in line and immediately adopt the activation client. This is not obvious at all and especially fails to account for the antagonistic environment Bitcoin operates in.
Given that it’s hard to measure whether you have support of the economic majority and it’s almost impossible to measure user support, activating with such a low threshold is risky. If the soft fork activates while a large portion of the hashrate does not enforce it, there will at least be numerous reorgs, or if it activates with a minority of the hashrate enforcing the soft fork, enforcing nodes will simply get stuck on a minority chain while the rest of the network continues on with the heaviest chain. You have asserted multiple times that everyone would switch over when the fork activates, but provide no evidence why that should be the case — which is an especially ridiculous notion if only a small minority supports the fork. Obviously it would not be in the interest of the majority of the hashrate to sacrifice their block rewards to accommodate a minority unless the soft fork is enforced by an overwhelming economic majority. Currently, your fork proposal seems to have next to zero interest from Bitcoin businesses and (in my perception) the vast majority of users. The notion that an overwhelming economic majority will run your vibe-coded Knots-derivative to force a majority of miners to fall in line is laughable.
I’m long popcorn for the 1st of September.
You seem to think that when the signaling threshold is reached everyone would fall in line and immediately adopt the activation client. This is not obvious at all and especially fails to account for the antagonistic environment Bitcoin operates in.
It is not necessary to switch to the activation client in order to stay in consensus once activation has occurred. It is sufficient to run any client that is in consensus now. That's the nice thing about softforks...
Given that it’s hard to measure whether you have support of the economic majority and it’s almost impossible to measure user support, activating with such a low threshold is risky.
Only for node operators who don't update between lock-in and activation. Everyone else experiences no risk.
If the soft fork activates while a large portion of the hashrate does not enforce it, there will at least be numerous reorgs, or if it activates with a minority of the hashrate enforcing the soft fork, enforcing nodes will simply get stuck on a minority chain while the rest of the network continues on with the heaviest chain.
The reorgs will only affect the spam-chain. BIP-110 nodes will be unaffected.
You have asserted multiple times that everyone would switch over when the fork activates, but provide no evidence why that should be the case — which is an especially ridiculous notion if only a small minority supports the fork.
We are discussing the situation where 55% of the hashrate indicates readiness to enforce the new rules. This is not a "small minority", so I'm unsure why you're bringing this up.
Wipeout risk from staying on the old chain is the obvious reason why most likely everyone will switch to start enforcing the new rules between lock-in and activation.
Obviously it would not be in the interest of the majority of the hashrate to sacrifice their block rewards to accommodate a minority unless the soft fork is enforced by an overwhelming economic majority.
Again, 55% is a majority, not a minority. You seem to be addressing some other thread...
Currently, your fork proposal seems to have next to zero interest from Bitcoin businesses and (in my perception) the vast majority of users.
I'm not surprised that you are this out of touch.
The notion that an overwhelming economic majority will run your vibe-coded Knots-derivative to force a majority of miners to fall in line is laughable.
My "vibe-coded Knots-derivative" at least doesn't force-delete users' wallet directories with all their contents.
I’m long popcorn for the 1st of September.
I'm expecting BIP-110 to activate well before then.
The case where it activates with 55% support was the topic of this thread. Remember how you were scolding me for "expecting you to do my work for me"? Why are you changing the subject? Could it be because you don't actually have any evidence that 55% is unsafe?
If you are fine with waiting until BIP-110 activates for the general public to hear your rationale as to why you believe 55% is too low, then so am I. I cannot determine whether your concern is reasonable because you refuse to back up your position with evidence, so I will assume that you don't believe it is reasonable, either.