pull down to refresh
It doesn't need a 'minority of nodes' to agree to anything. It triggers sometime in august and the nodes running it start invalidating blocks from the "main chain" AKA actual bitcoin.
Then those nodes may be waiting a long time ie many years before they see a chain that meets their ruleset with more than a few blocks if they ever even get that far...
The 'new chain' with new rules needs 2000 blocks approximately to get a difficulty adjustment and at 1% of former hashrate thats... 200 weeks or about 4 years. All that time bip110 miners get ZERO new coins they can sell unless they have waited at least 100 blocks which means about 2 years... So bip110 miners don't get any revenue from mining for 2 years at 1% of current hashrate.
If bip110ers were serious they would be buying asics and a lot of them but it's easier to sit in the basement and LARP.
Thank you 😊 thats a great explanation 👍 im just observing the debate
When you put it like that, the larping may soon be limping!
Money talks
So would you say, the spam argument is a surface level offering to the bip, whereas there may be an ulterior motives hidden in plain sight?
My humble opinion is that people are just misled... There is no way to really stop 'spam' it is more or less an attack on the network that can take almost any format.
The only way to actually stop it is outbid it which is trivial to do at 1 sat/vbyte.
Yes, obviously i dont know all the terminology but there are many ways to skin a cat or should I say opcat lol
I'm with you in that if you pay the fee etc but as you say, with fees being so low there's a low barrier to entry
Would you say that bip110 is effectively choosing what you're 'allowed' to add to a block?, which to my mind is madness
Is it common for developers to develop main character syndrome and feel the need to save Bitcoin?
The 'harm' to nodes comes from the bloating of the UTXO set not cheap access to blockspace.
However the set could be bloated by runes or op_return arbitrary metaprotocols adopted by degens... That are infinite in configuration and design. They come and go with bull and bear markets and can happen any time.
Bip110 would have more support if fees were really high for a really long time but at sub 1 sat fees, miners think it doesn't make sense/it keeps moving the goalposts.
If bitcoin were really adopted fees onchain would be very high and onchain transactions would be very expensive, maybe 30$ or more. Spam doesn't fix that nor do filters.
The other day I saw that ViaBTC isn't mining sub-1sat fee, nor large OP_RETURN. This could simply be a feature of simply not upgrading Bitcoin Core, I'm not sure if there's an intent behind it. example block
I think that that's a much clearer signal than supporting filters, even if it's unintentional as such.
In my opinion yes and that's what we see anyway. At 1 sat / vbyte about half the block is spam.
At 2 sat / vbyte maybe 10%
At 3 sat / vbyte maybe 1%
Real global adoption implies 20-30 sat / vbyte over a long time period meaning that spam would be possible but extremely expensive for spammers, only possible for short periods, miners would be well compensated and an enormous # of people would be bidding to get into blocks meaning that small/efficient transactions would out price larger less efficient ones.
I personally think this will still happen... But it will take time.
In other words... My humble opinion is that currently bip-110 adds risk with little/no meaningful upside and isn't helpful at this time.
Agreed 👍 thank you for your knowledge 🙏 Optimism will have his own take but I'm sure any common sense view would agree with us
The absence of a leader or ceo leaves us in an echo chamber of constant bickering over direction
But I'd hope Satoshi would be watching this and agree that every little amendment is thoroughly scrutinised
And with knowledgeable contributors like yourself and many others here, we can come to see Bitcoin March on block by block
I hope that noderunners see this view and I'm confident they will
No softfork even requires "full" consensus. The "standard" for the few we've done is a very high supermajority (90-95%), that's what BIP-110 breaks with, but LNHANCE also weakens it (85%).
Thus far no miner has decided to run an activation client it seems. I do expect this to change; there's always some activism. But since it's all so contentious now, it's a slow going of actual commitment. Which goes against what was said to be the purpose of BIP-110 (signaling a desire for change.)
So the miners not showing any interest highlights the irony of what bip110 is trying to achieve right?
And if the miners don't get on board which seems likely given your evidence, this whole charade will stall and whither away potentially
So this bip is looking more and more likely a failed attempt
So interesting to actually peel back the onion and see it for what it is, described by you guys with the correct information and past experiences
I wrote this in my post and it's relevant here, I am listening more than i speak
#1438013
Most likely I assume that a lot of the commentary on SN is people who have no idea what they are talking about trying to join a discussion with people that do
guilty 😔guilty 😔
So the miners not showing any interest highlights the irony of what bip110 is trying to achieve right?
I think it's still early and making a decision like this takes time and effort, but now the narrative suddenly popped up that there is no reason to signal except for the last period. Which is kind of dumb, because the whole point of the signaling is transparency, not obscurity. But the whole thing is a mess and I find most of the rationale behind the BIP, the supporters' narrative and the toxicity very, very weak, and reeking of misguidance.
I also think that in general, activation clients are overvalued, because switching software isn't a light decision, especially not for a mining pool or an concentrated economic actor (i.e. custody provider.) Reviewing c++ code is hard, and in the BIP-110 case, even harder because it's based off of Knots, which is yet another point of pain.
Most likely I assume that a lot of the commentary on SN is people who have no idea what they are talking about trying to join a discussion with people that do
It's very hard to have a 100% correct idea about it. I've been actively reviewing the Bitcoin Core code for 13 years, I'm a c++ systems programmer, I kind of review c++ "for a living", yet I am never sure. It's complex code and it's always possible to have missed something. For example I missed how the force signaling for the last period was implemented simply because it wasn't done where and how I expected it to be.
So this bip is looking more and more likely a failed attempt
Too soon to tell! All we can do is try to track what's going on.
As I'm researching Optimism, bip110 doesn't require full concensus?
Just needs a minority of nodes to agree and the majority 'to not object '
But as you have laid out. Even the minority haven't signalled yet?