pull down to refresh
I’m not advocating for an intolerant minority strategy but it’s not an unreasonable expectation that those who have gone out of their way to adopt a particular block template are more committed than those who are using a default setting.
What makes you think that other pools are using a default setting?
If the other pools are just as committed then their intolerant majority will trump the intolerant minority.
The point is just that people who consciously defect from the norm tend to be more committed to their position because they had an affirmative reason to change.
Intolerant of non-profit-maximalism. With Antpool & co and Viabtc this is the clearest strategy. But do you really think that Foundry customers will suck wood for Luke's principles? lmao.
I'm not predicting they will. I'm just trying to explain the logic.
It's precisely because of not wanting to lose money on an orphaned block, in the manner explained by @Scoresby, that would make a profit maximizer consider switching.
As the entrenched minority gets closer to 50%, the probability of losing rewards increases and the likelihood of others switching increases. That can make what had been the minority position become the majority one and now those who were on that side earlier lost fewer rewards.
None of this is about people being persuaded to Luke's principles.
I think it is, because Luke is the one failing to force a policy from a 2.5% share of hashrate. The sole reason why miners mine spam is because it is profitable. So if you really want to make spam priced out, reduce block size to 100kB. I don't see that in BIP-110, because they have no fucking clue what they're doing. It's all politics.
My question is this: if 70% of the network is profit maxi, 10% is weird (f2pool) and the other 20% is mixed, why do we entertain this narrative?
You'll be much more likely to know those answers than me.
If BIP-110 never gets close to 50% then this whole thing will really never have mattered.
Sure, but what I'm getting at is that there is a pretty narrow window when this is relevant.
In the moment of a split, miners have to make a decision about this. If >51% hashrate is on the non-BIP-110 side, every block they find means they will have to sacrifice more block rewards and fees in order to accommodate the intolerant minority, right?
Now, if the argument is that miners will appease the intolerant minority before activation and signal that they will mine BIP 110 blocks, then perhaps you have a point.
I think it's that final point, plus some group who makes the switch quickly after activation.
Your logic seems right that if this distribution persists for very long then the minority will lose and become irrelevant.
in my mind, the way they are handling this, is kind of like:
look, It's safe to use a low entropy bitcoin key as long as the incentives are such that no one will want to steal your bitcoin.
(Bitcoin seems to be designed more along the lines of we don't know what all the incentives are, so the system needs to be durable to any kind of action)