pull down to refresh
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.
A coinbase from the non-BIP-110 chaintip post-fork will also not land on BIP-110 because those coins don't exist in that chain. So you're not just aggressively excluding spammers, you're aggressively excluding everyone that does not share your point of view 100%.
For example, I dislike the spam and meta protocols in general, and I do think that there's an inherent weakness in Bitcoin that enables it. But BIP-110 is a poorly designed solution. Not like taproot that made a couple of poor auxiliary choices, but intrinsically dubious choices, with as only mitigation the temporary nature: Bitcoin would be in a miserably designed state for a year. That prevents adaption of the proposal, and the root cause is ultimately rushed execution in the development process: it was rushed because of what appears to be an emotional foundation of arbitrary deadlines (that weren't met, so it was pointless to begin with.)
High level: The day that some bubble on twitter is going to rule Bitcoin through force is the end of liberty in Bitcoin. If a subgroup (explicitly aimed for with 55% MASF that is likely to fail in the remaining few weeks, and a minority built in through the UASF side) can dominate consensus by force rather than by building it, then Bitcoin-the-tool-for-resistance is dead. Because this would mean that all a hostile state actor, or - perhaps even worse - some self-sovereign sociopath or puppet of one, would have to do is gaslight twitter to control Bitcoin.
PS: you didn't answer my question.
You're right that the coinbase and a growing number of pre-requisite transactions will not be valid on the 110 chain. At the beginning, all non-spam transactions, essentially, will be valid on either chain. And, for a while, most transactions will need to worry about which chain they land on. I believe that does answer your question.
Yeah, that window is 100 blocks unless there is overtake risk (40%+ basically, though if some pools do not pay attention, it could be done with less; 34% selfish BIP-110 versus a naive 66% non-110 - though that is unlikely, it is not like this is a stealth op.)
So this is what happens:
The exact constraint for "worry" is that within the first 100 blocks post factual fork, when forked coinbases are unspendable, BIP-110 has between 34% and 66% of realized hash power. If it doesn't have that, it's either succeeded or failed and there is nothing to worry about. I think that the whole thing balances on whether you think that this 34%-66% scenario is likely. I don't see it right now, but maybe I am naive.
It's not personal. It's a response to a specific behavior. I have zero-tolerance for anyone intentionally spamming the chain. I tell Casey Rodarmor directly that I think he's a bad person. I have no qualms doing that. Social shaming is a tool.
I don't agree with calling people pedos just because they like Core, either .
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.
Is anyone running it?
Everyone is already running the URSF software. Whenever RDTS finds its first block and the Bitcoin chain is at least 100 blocks ahead of RDTS, the obvious thing is to call invalidateblock on the first RDTS block. It’s not in the interest of anyone to accept a reorg of 100 blocks or more.
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.
You're apparently assuming that the mining signalling will remain static.
RDTS has been signaling for something like six months, but has yet to breach 1% of hashrate support. Anyone wanting a soft fork to succeed would want to signal early to shift the Overton Window and get people to prepare. The idea that miners don’t signal for six months, but suddenly start signaling at the mandatory signaling height doesn’t pass the giggle test.
the "fork off" narrative shows exactly why Core is so unpopular with certain parts of their intended userbase.
It’s the clear result of the RDTS supporters course. Committing to a flag day activation as the first and final position in a community conversation signals unwillingness to negotiate. Between getting active to enable a loud minority trying to walk all over the network or doing nothing to let them run aground, what did you think is the expected outcome?
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.
The new network’s figurehead is Luke, who has endeared himself to everyone else by famously working great with others, and calling people liar and pedo left and right for the past years. He has a history of poor security practices, publicly advocates for absolutist rule, and has zero support from the dev community and economic actors. The new network having any credibility at all will be an uphill battle. Bitcoin resisting a vocal minority imposing its will on the network will make it look more reliable if anything.
The main predicament is watching this trainwreck in slo-mo as a bunch of people who we used to respect set their social capital on fire. Sucks for the people that let themselves be suckered into this ritual self-sacrifice, but thanks, I guess.
How would a bunch of home nodes without economic activity rejecting blocks cause chaos?