pull down to refresh
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.
I have zero influence. I'm just an observer.
Just an observer answers the first. I avoid getting emotionally invested in things I have no control over.
I don't think I'm bailing on bitcoin either way, so I'm not sure there's a meaningful sense in which I'm pro or anti. I doubt it's going to happen and I'm perfectly fine with that.
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.