Have you started running another implementation to keep a closer eye on the forking drama upcoming?
If other, I'd be interested to know which one.
Edit: I forgot to nice try fed myself, per custom. So yea...
Yes - Knots0.0%
Yes - Core0.0%
Yes - Libbitcoin5.6%
Yes - Btcd0.0%
Yes - Other 0.0%
No38.9%
Not running a node16.7%
Nice try fed 😃38.9%
18 votes \ 1 day left
If I thought it was going to get more like 30% of the hashrate, perhaps. But even then it doesn't matter: my Core node will follow the heaviest chain whether it ends up being bip110 or not.
I don't think it will either, if we're talking about bip110.
I was more wondering if anyone was interested in independently verifying bip110 blocks in the event of a chain split. Is there a way to do this without running Knots?
IIRC there used to be a modified version of bitcoind that tries to explore all chaintip forks and fetch the block data of announced headers / compact blocks, even if it is on a tip that is extremely unlikely to ever overtake.
I'm not sure how well this works with the BIP-110 fork because last I checked at least the activation client seemed to be discriminative and aggressively disconnect any nodes that allow blocks deviating from BIP-110, so from that perspective, running 2 nodes is probably your best bet if you want to observe and compare in depth. You'll still be able to see the block headers and chaintip length of everything on Core, as long as you're connected to at least one peer with the other chaintip though, just it won't always fetch the block data, so you won't always be able to tell what's in the blocks.
bitcoin-cli getchaintipsis always your friend.Interesting. TIL my node connected to peers on other chain tips (17 to be exact).
Those are orphaned blocks due to timing / races, i.e. the bulk should be "naturally" occuring reorgs or late blocks that didn't make it in,
branchlenis indicating how many blocks the split is deep. You should for example be seeing the recent 2-block reorg from #1459136 at 941880 to 941882:{ "height": 941882, "hash": "00000000000000000000c81cbf94a12ca498e72eb8530f7061c8746cf9687b2e", "branchlen": 2, "status": "valid-fork" }When the chaintip splits, the BIP-110 side should show up there too, given that there is still some bridging happening between the two implementations. If it takes over, the non-BIP-110 side will be listed there.
Great, I do see the reorg.
I thought it was interesting that these are all post block 900000.
Your node only knows what it has seen, and only since since the last reindex / IBD.
Makes sense.
you put sats on the line for that?!
If someone thought they could successfully claim "airdrop coins," they could, vote the opposite way on this market and hedge their bet.
I'm too chicken to try something like this though.
Yeah, totally. And from Jimmy Song's rundown earlier, I'm even more skittish
I was surprised his article hasn't garnered more attention on this platform. Not even a single downzap.
Booooooring.
Downzapping is all that matters.
Update, it just got rekt.
https://stacker.news/top/posts/day?by=downsats
I'm surprised, and disappointed;
without spoilers, in case people read comments before voting, I'll simply suggest that you make such polls in the future have a longer voting window... otherwise you're introducing several sampling biases.