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