pull down to refresh
Interesting to hear I was on What Bitcoin Did, I'd love to chat with Danny, or Peter, but I don't recall getting on either of their shows!
Short answer: I re-evaluated the risk profile and find 110 activating smoothly to be the less risky scenario.
Slightly longer answer: I've always supported 110's goals and I consider the technical tradeoffs to be reasonable. Previously, I thought the right choice was to advocate against the change, even if I agree with it. Less change was the less risky move. But now, it's clear that 110 is happening no matter what, and I consider its failure to have the highest potential for negative consequences.
What makes you think that BIP110 is happening no matter what?
Edit to clarify my question:
What I’m seeing is:
- ≤ 1% of the hashrate
- about 12% of listening nodes with the
NODE_KNOTS_BIP110_UASF (27)service bit - Basically no support from any businesses
- Basically no support from the dev community
Are you seeing something else than me?
Hey Murch! My definition is that many noderunners will start rejecting blocks. That's happening. It hit a threshold in my head where the amount is enough to have the potential to cause significant chaos. Any efforts from my side to advise caution weren't working.
Mea culpa, I posted and then amended my post to clarify my question, but you answered before I finished my edit.
How would a bunch of home nodes without economic activity rejecting blocks cause chaos?
Two ways, no matter what. One is that until there is some finality, there will be uncertainty. Does your on-chain transaction land in a 110 compliant block or not? There are things to consider. I advise caution. Don't transact until there is certainty if you can avoid it. Certainty might come quickly, but we won't know that.
The other is that a group of users is likely to essentially ragequit and fork off, and I don't like that. 110 activating smoothly avoids that outcome.
Why would you care about block bip-110 compliance if your client is on a non-compliant chain? You won't see the BIP-110 block as confirmed?
The moment the current mechanism activates is when its either going to have close to 40% of hash power and have a chance to overtake, or not. The first block mining an inscription will cause 110 nodes to fork off and that's that?
What do I miss that causes this uncertainty?
Your transaction, provided you're not a piece of shit, will be compliant on both chains. Your transaction could land on either one. The only way to guarantee that your transaction DOESN'T land in a 110 compliant block (or the 110 compliant chain at all) is if you add a violating transaction. AKA an 84 byte OP_RETURN or some other kind of violating data. In which case I refer you back to the first sentence.
The other is that a group of users is likely to essentially ragequit and fork off, and I don't like that. 110 activating smoothly avoids that outcome.
you don't think there's an equal, or large, risk of that happening if 110 activates...?
Not particularly. It's possible. Nobody is threatening to ragequit if 110 activates that I can see. And, if they do so, they will be ragequitting from Bitcoin, they won't be moving off to a new fork.
If a URSF develops, that's different.
Users forking off after being told for nine months that their action will cause them to fork off sounds like an expected outcome, not chaos.
If there is about one RDTS-compliant block per day, it will be indeed difficult to get confirmations on the RDTS chaintip. Not getting confirmations delays things and makes for a terrible user experience, but could you spell out for me how that would translate to "chaos"?
You're apparently assuming that the mining signalling will remain static. And, to be blunt, the "fork off" narrative shows exactly why Core is so unpopular with certain parts of their intended userbase.
But, if you're right, Luke has expressed that he will change the proof of work algorithm and fork to a new chain.
The chaos I'm referring to is both internal and external. The internal side holds that there is a risk of takeover as long as a competing chain exists. It might be a negligible risk, but it's possible until the situation is resolved definitively. A final hard fork would be definitive.
But, externally, anything could happen with a new hard fork. We have no idea how that's going to play out. Bitcoin's reputation could take a major hit. The new chain would definitely claim to be the "monetary" Bitcoin compared to the spam, institution, and crypto-casino beholden "original" Bitcoin.
I'm sort of not sure why you don't think a public, contentious fork wouldn't be a bad thing.
Sure, but my answer still stands. I'm not saying that it will activate and become the longest chain. I'm saying that a certain proportion of nodes will start rejecting blocks.
Shit, my bad, I listen to a lot of podcasts :) It Was Bitcoin Audible with Guy Swan.
When you say "it's clear that 110 is happening no matter what" you mean that come mandatory signalling they will fork off on their own chain? Or do you mean something else?
No worries!
Both of those things you mentioned, essentially. I'm convinced that the number of node runners is significant enough to cause miners to think twice about not signaling. And the 110 node runners aren't backing down or diminishing. The train has left the station. It's just a matter of what the impact of that train will be. Bit of a bad analogy. Oh well.
Heard you on What Bitcoin Did recently discussing your book and you were decidedly anti-BIP110, though clearly lukewarm about the reasons. Your post history recently on X is decidedly pro-BIP110. What changed?