pull down to refresh
There could coexist 2 chains with 40% (A) and 60% (B) of the pre-split hashrate. Neither of the chains would probably sacrifice their hashrate to attack each other (reorg).
Anyway, chain split probability is low. Most probably malicious miners won't attempt a hardfork in the wake of the activation of the BIP-110.
Anyway, chain split probability is low
This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. On what do you base it? Do you think that the high rate (90%, 95%) of signalling used for past soft forks was chosen because people thought the numbers looked pretty?
And while I have you: this business of defining anyone who disagrees with you as "malicious" is petty. If a miner wishes to continue using their hashrate to mine with rules that sync with the current bitcoin blockchain, that is their choice.
It is your choice to call such a miner malicious, but it sounds childish.
I can't imagine a spammer not being malicious. They shouldn't mine bulky spam, e.g. 100kB (or more) garbage in OP_RETURN. Bitcoin is money. BIP-110 makes it more secure.
It's ridiculous to apply double standards: promoting malicious miners choice (and free-riding) while disregarding choice of honest ones and nodes.
I base the low probability of chainsplit on the fact that malicious miners are greedy and so have strong incentive to follow the Bitcoin network with the BIP-110 security improvement rather than hardforking their own, short-lived chain to mine bulky spam.
A miner who mines a valid tx seems to me to be a factual miner (greedy).
I run a node and have been for years. It hasn't gotten appreciably harder or more expensive.
Storage is the absolute cheapest resource.
But where we really disagree is that I think BIP 110 makes Bitcoin less secure. By arbitrarily picking some previously valid transactions and disallowing them, it damages the confidence bitcoiners have that the coins they hold will be spendable in the future. It sets a precedent for evaluating a transaction not by block validation rules, but some other moral argument. It is no different than the foolish attempts of governments to label certain kinds of speech "bad."
You don't know what you are writing about. Or you are intentionally trolling.
Which statement do you believe is ignorant?
My question had to do with Luke's statements.
I have tried to understand these statements, but I don't see how they can be true...unless one assumes that enough hashrate will soon join the BIP110 side so they have more than 51%.
But if that is the necessary assumption, I don't understand why one would make the claim that "under 50% could work"
Additionally, I have not gotten an even remotely reasonable answer about why a non BIP110 chain must counterfork (and not just ignore) if it has more than 51% of hashrate.
If you can explain either of these positions, I'd be very grateful.