The best would have been if Luke had resigned any time after stopping to perform the BIP Editor work. I had publicly asked for his resignation after him trying to assign a BIP number on Twitter for a BIP that hadn’t even been sent to the mailing list.

If we had removed Luke in the past few months, people like Giacomo would have said it’s retaliation for championing BIP110 or for calling us pedos all the same.

After not doing anything for years, all the crap he pulled, I don’t see how it would have been tenable to keep Luke on after he additionally announced his departure from Bitcoin development.

https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2086645671914840081

So, I’d be curious to hear what would have been a better time to remove Luke. What additional events would you have waited for, or which criteria would you have used?

It’s not that surprising of a prediction, given that Luke has been not doing the work of a BIP Editor in over five years.

I listed some other grievances in my second email on the mailing list thread: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/knbv3MFwlvU

E.g., when the Taproot authors wanted to amend their BIP to propose a deployment mechanism, he obstructed the update even after all three authors had signed off on it, because he favored a different deployment mechanism. He had also done next to no BIP Editor work in five years. If you don’t do the work, you don’t need the privileges necessary to do the work.

Thanks!

What’s your current take on pool payout schemes?

I didn’t get the question. What’s the connection with Rootstock?

[…] if there is a hard fork - what happens if your bitcoin is in a hardware wallet? Do you have access to the original coin and the forked coin? If so, how does that work with ledger/jade/trezor/etc - do they just add it to the suite and you can move it like BTC?

A hardfork introduces a protocol rule that is not forward-compatible to existing software. In some cases this might be a protocol that doesn’t affect the transaction format. This could for example be a blockweight limit increase. The upgraded software might accept 8M weight instead of just 4M weight, but unupgraded nodes would continue to limit blocks to 4M and thereby reject blocks created per the new rules, but hardware signers would be able to sign transactions just fine.

If the hard fork changes the format of the transaction, e.g., by changing the way signatures commit to transactions as Bitcoin Cash did when it forked off from Bitcoin, then the hardware signer would require a firmware update to be able to produce the correct signatures, and presumably the companion wallet software for your hardware signer would either get a new function that allows you to copy your Bitcoin wallet to the new forkcoin or create such a copy for you automatically.

From that point on, you would use one wallet to manage your funds for Bitcoin and the copy of the wallet to manage your funds for the forkcoin.

If none of the exchanges list the smaller forked coin, I'm guessing prices can't drop too much on it?

The exchange rate of cryptocurrencies is discovered by trades on exchanges. If no exchange adds the cryptocurrency, it might not have a price or the price would be subjective to the various individual trades sellers and buyers negotiate directly. I would imagine that a Bitcoin forkcoin would be sufficiently interesting that someone lists it. But it might be a tiny or unreputable exchange that you might not want to make an account on.

From what i've look at in 2017, it looks like for a while it was uncertain, but BCH sold off significantly compared to BTC. Do you think the same would happen here?

In my subjective opinion, BIP110 had fairly little support, so the exchange rate of the coming forkcoin should be expected to be pretty low.

Also wouldn't there be high risk of a 51% attack on the smaller chain, because there isn't alot of hash?

Yes, smaller cryptocurrencies are much more susceptible to 51% attacks and other miner attacks.

Any further information on this would be cool

One important aspect is to watch out whether Luke adds replay protection to his forkcoin. If they do not change the transaction format, any transaction for which all input UTXOs are available on both chains will be eligible for either chain. If you try to send your Luke-coins to an exchange, you might also send your bitcoin there at the same time. If there is no replay protection, you will need to split your coins first, to make sure that you can transfer them independently on the two chains. Hopefully Luke does add replay protection, and the any transaction on either chain will not be replayable.

Sure, I just meant to point out that if they fork off from a future block, this replay protection would be undermined and it should perhaps be communicated in the context so that people don’t rely on these coinjoins for replay protection against a potential later forkpoint.

Just for completeness, miners can permanently destroy bitcoins without creating an output by collecting less than the permitted block reward.

Muted a bunch of keywords related to the forkcoin and then logged out of Twitter on all my devices, hopefully for a few weeks. Time to attack the backlog of messages, emails, and BIPs submissions that have piled up. Next week is also the Bitcoin Core v32 feature freeze.

It would seem to me that some renegotiation of the social contract would be more pressing if they are interested in reverting their population trajectory.

I thought they were still making up their minds whether they would fork off from their mandatory signaling chain or from Bitcoin mainchain's latest state on September 1st.

I realized that I was struggling with coming up with something reasonably quickly, and should also be trying to catch up on BIPs, so I asked a friend to tag in for support.

I thought that rule came only later, but if it was introduced in 2012, that would certainly explain it.

Car bloat has made cars more dangerous to accident opponents and pedestrians. The increased height of hoods has drastically reduced visibility in front of those cars. Higher and heavier cars are more dangerous to smaller cars, and the higher hoods make accidents much more dangerous for pedestrians, because they are not just swept off their legs onto the hood but hit in their torso and run over.

I thought that libbitcoin needed more storage than Bitcoin Core?

Covenants being used to create a whitelist-coin was a big concern when the covenant debate restarted a few years ago. After it was debated for months, the general sentiment settled on the concern being unsubstantiated. About to go to bed, I’m gonna try to write up an example for a covenant tomorrow after the Optech Recap.

In Bitcoin, the recipient picks the address (i.e., the output script) that they expect to be paid to. Usage of a covenant construction would be self-selected, it generally cannot be imposed by the sender. If the sender unilaterally decides to send funds to a different output script than indicated by the receiver, the receiver would likely not even notice the payment, and has grounds to not honor the payment.

Thanks for the forward. Update on the matter:

Came here to post that. ;)