> Now, if the BIP 110 people really wanted to do something, they could make it so if their chain ever gets 2 or 3 blocks behind, they reorg to use the non-BIP-110 tip and try again. Maybe people would get so frustrated that they would run BIP 110 just to stop the reorg storm.

I think this is what I implicitly had in mind, because i am still thinking from the perspective of today, where the miners are in sync.

But you're right, if they just stay on their own fork, then it just becomes another fork coin.

SimpleStacker

But once there is one split, it's all or nothing. Hashrate will have to change sides for a new split to occur.

I don't see how you could have multiple orphaned blocks in this situation: as soon as one BIP110 violating block is mined, none of the BIP110 miners will mine on it.

The only reason non-BIP110 miners would mine on the BIP110 chain after a split was if it had more hashrate. But my whole question was about this assertion that a BIP110 with a minority of hashrate somehow can overtake or pose a threat to a majority hashrate non BIP110 chain.

bitcoin

The asymmetric advantage of a BIP-110 fork

Scoresby

hmm, maybe I'm missing it. 

But once there is one split, it's all or nothing. Hashrate will have to change sides for a new split to occur.

I don't see how you could have multiple orphaned blocks in this situation: as soon as one BIP110 violating block is mined, none of the BIP110 miners will mine on it. 

The only reason non-BIP110 miners would mine on the BIP110 chain after a split was if it had more hashrate. But my whole question was about this assertion that a BIP110 with a minority of hashrate somehow can overtake or pose a threat to a majority hashrate non BIP110 chain.