pull down to refresh

So the plan is to either convince x% of the miners in an epoch, which is why your threshold is so low, because you know you cannot make this less controversial than it is, and if you don't get that, then an economic nodes majority will kick in and your camp will just fork off on a chaintip with whatever miners you can convince that will then stop cooperating with the majority.

I must admit, we're going to learn a lot from this.

The threshold is lower than usual mostly to prevent malicious miners from vetoing the change, which we have seen with past miner-activated softfork attempts. If 55% of the hashpower is ready to change the rules, then there is no reason to wait any longer than that.

reply

Seems to me that if there are "malicious miners" they might be willing to try to "waste money" (as you called it in another comment) and refuse to shift over to BIP 110.

You seem to be arguing that few miners would be willing to lose money mining non-BIP 110 blocks after activation BUT also that some significant portion of miners is willing to act maliciously toward BIP 110.

reply
202 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 6 Jan

Considering the amount of false signaling we saw before segwit and taproot activation, 55% signaling could easily be reached with less than a majority of the hashrate enforcing the new rules. (Assuming there were an expectation for this proposal to come anywhere close to that level of signaling.)

reply

Do you have more data on false signaling? I presume it should be straightforward to identify miners who are doing this.

reply
1000 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 7 Jan

I’m not sure why you expect me to do your work for you, while you are in pursuit of a project that I clearly oppose. Good luck.

reply

I'm not sure why you wouldn't provide this data if you are worried BIP-110 will cause disruption, when no one else has indicated that there is cause for concern. Since you don't want to provide it, and since you openly admit to being opposed, I will assume this is FUD.

reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 8h

I was pointing out one reason why a well-reasoned soft fork proposal would avoid such a low activation threshold. I neither said nor implied that I’m worried about RDTS causing disruption. In fact, I explicitly stated my expectation that it will have negligible adoption. Your repeated refusal to engage with reasonable concerns is rather reassuring in that regard.

reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 6 Jan

So everyone that doesn't signal readiness is malicious?

reply

That's not what I said, no.

reply