pull down to refresh

221 sats \ 6 replies \ @Scoresby OP 4h \ parent \ on: The asymmetric advantage of a BIP-110 fork bitcoin

I don't mind if someone says "it's easy to get 50%"

In that case, it is something measurable and either they will or they won't.

But I'm mystified by these statements which assume some knowledge that I apparently have great difficulty accessing but also imply certitude that things will go a certain way.

If less than 50% of hashrate does not run BIP110, I fail to see how that changes. Every block that gets found in such a state will require the majority of hashrate to sacrifice even more in order to "comply" with BIP110 chain.

I really don't understand what I'm missing.

write
preview
244 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 4h

It's all bullshit. Luke is speaking to his base, not to you.

If there is a chaintip split and you're on the not-forked side, you can still replay all txns on the other side and get the fees, including those that you didn't mine. The only thing you cannot get is the fees from utxo that were doublespent.

reply
247 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby OP 3h

Is it bad of me to occasionally write the acronym for this fork as RTRDS?

reply
102 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 3h

YES!!! Shame on you! 😭 lol

Naw... but I dont know what the fuck that means and why we all can't just get along.

Worse. I don't understand why there is a toxic conversation between the author of said BIP and Murch while I spent 7 fucking hours trying to be nice and bring actual issues to the table.

reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 2h

Because Dathon doesn’t actually want feedback, he wants engagement.

I thought your comments were well-thought out and zapped a bunch of them, fwiw.

reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 2h

Thanks Murch.

Since all my zaps go to CCs, I have paid them fwd. <3

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dathon_ohm 1h outlawed

I would accept feedback if you had it. But you don't have feedback, you just have FUD that you refuse to back up with facts or arguments.