Well then what are they planning on doing Saturday? How are they going to exchange it?
They literally have to notify the merchants, they need lightning support, they need exchanges to list it, and with ~ 3% hashrate it would take ~ 60 weeks to get a difficulty adjustment. Or 30 hours for 'final confirmation' of a transaction (6 blocks at 5 hours per block found).
Or ~ 15 hours to open a lightning channel (3 confs for Lightning).
(10 minutes x 30 = 300 minutes = 5 hours per block)
And bip-110 miners cannot sell their coins for 100 blocks or 500 hours or ~ 20 days.
Will those coins have buyers to pay for the electricity? Basically 3 weeks without a payout for the miners etc etc
And if none of this 'works' (miners waiting almost 21 days to sell their mined coins) then knowing ahead of time the new PoW would give the forking insiders an enormous advantage. To solo-mine or essentially premine by having the equipment set up already.
And in which case what is the name of the new coin going to be? Who decides how much difficulty the mining will have? And if the PoW changes will it still be 'temporary' for just the year what happens after the year is up?
I haven't seen any of these questions answered yet and I've been following this stuff for few years
They are still faking confidence and claiming that there is no opposition. Unfortunately, they cannot publicly talk about all the glaring issues you listed, while they pretend that the entire Bitcoin network will go along with BIP 110.
The point of the fork is to punish Bitcoin Core developers for not listening to the pitchfork mob. Don’t mind them cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
Given that any transactions submitted to either chaintip will be valid for both chaintips at first, I expect that their mempool will be growing substantially and their minimum block feerates will be significantly higher than those of the standard chaintip. Which would mean that any transactions sent to compete for inclusion on the BIP 110 chaintip would also pay exorbitant fees on the standard chaintip. Probably most BIP 110 proponents will hold back transaction activity and wait for the dust to settle. I wouldn’t be surprised if support for the minority chaintip folds in less than 24h.
Not sure about spam transactions. Yes, most should be priced out, but there might be some attempts to get data into the first signaling block just for sport.
Either way, I expect a lot of people to be watching closely and discussing what’s happening on Saturday.
I expect some small 'inscription' (could just be a random Brc thing) in every post-chaintip block. Meaning that every block will be 'thrown out' by bip-110 nodes correct? So the hardfork will be almost immediate.
Then the forkers nodes will never see another valid block... because the previous block will already have been thrown out. It only takes one transaction from what I understand, almost a given, for the forkers to think the block is invalid meaning that every subsequent block is also invalid and the chains fork immediately.
Then it is on the forkers to generate enough hashrate to actually find blocks on their chain. If miners ignore them then... what?
I think the title of this SN post could have been a little more interpretive, perhaps best including the word "prepares"; it doesn't seem from a quick skim that any concrete plans have been made... if they had, I'm guessing that would've been the news.
Developers rebase old code to maintain optionality, improve orthogonality, or sometimes even just as an exercise.
anyway I give myself ten minutes to sanity-check my initial skim, starting... now!
verdict: there's not even a pull request...
sure, "where there's smoke, there's a fire", although in this case, you're only pointing at a circle of stones, long cold from the previous campsite, that were moved closer to the current one.
Guida states "I think we should have this in our back pocket in case miners decide to collude to destroy bitcoin"
Dahsjr states: "Hopefully won't come to that, but probably good to have it prepared just in case."
Mechanic states: "Makes no sense not having it prepared (for all scenarios given how centralized mining is, not just BIP110). If it ends up being necessary and we end up PoW changing...don't threaten me with a good time."
Dathon Ohm states: "I suppose if firing all of the miners is necessary to have miners that will do their job, then so be it."
All shortly after the Guida's post. I maintain that this is clearly evidence of much more than "just as an exercise" -- further, Guida himself in the OP says: "So I've rebased@LukeDashjr's 2017 PoW-change hardfork code onto a recent version of Knots"
My OP title is almost a verbatim what he said. I've been scolded by bip110 supporters before for misinterpreting what they say, so in this case I went with what I thought was a safe path.
I definitely didn't mean the "just an exercise" in the context of these commits!
they obviously want leverage against miners, although it still seems to me that they are only at the stage of preparing this leverage, just in case it is needed.
I've worn out some of my patience on the topic through many conversations with guida and co, and so I'm probably a little too touchy on it these days. Certainly looking forward to some resolution in the near future.
now the del they are using CSAM card, what a losers. they did the same before Bitcoin Core 31 release.
now all redflags for centralizers, bootlickers, censors and controllers resentful of not changing the protocol with their tears and not understanding how a neutral and decentralized money works are hoisted.
Nobody could have ever seen this coming
Serious Question - are exchanges going to list Knots Coin? When are they going to give the coin its own name?
Bitcoin Knots
Bitcoin Luke's Vision etc etc
I would have thought they would choose a name a long time ago
At this time, I have not heard if any exchange that plans on listing the bip110 coin.
Well then what are they planning on doing Saturday? How are they going to exchange it?
They literally have to notify the merchants, they need lightning support, they need exchanges to list it, and with ~ 3% hashrate it would take ~ 60 weeks to get a difficulty adjustment. Or 30 hours for 'final confirmation' of a transaction (6 blocks at 5 hours per block found).
Or ~ 15 hours to open a lightning channel (3 confs for Lightning).
(10 minutes x 30 = 300 minutes = 5 hours per block)
And bip-110 miners cannot sell their coins for 100 blocks or 500 hours or ~ 20 days.
Will those coins have buyers to pay for the electricity? Basically 3 weeks without a payout for the miners etc etc
And if none of this 'works' (miners waiting almost 21 days to sell their mined coins) then knowing ahead of time the new PoW would give the forking insiders an enormous advantage. To solo-mine or essentially premine by having the equipment set up already.
And in which case what is the name of the new coin going to be? Who decides how much difficulty the mining will have? And if the PoW changes will it still be 'temporary' for just the year what happens after the year is up?
I haven't seen any of these questions answered yet and I've been following this stuff for few years
They are still faking confidence and claiming that there is no opposition. Unfortunately, they cannot publicly talk about all the glaring issues you listed, while they pretend that the entire Bitcoin network will go along with BIP 110.
The biggest one for me is this: if it takes ~ 5 hours to find ONE Knots block then either
or
So then what is the point of the fork?
The point of the fork is to punish Bitcoin Core developers for not listening to the pitchfork mob. Don’t mind them cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
Given that any transactions submitted to either chaintip will be valid for both chaintips at first, I expect that their mempool will be growing substantially and their minimum block feerates will be significantly higher than those of the standard chaintip. Which would mean that any transactions sent to compete for inclusion on the BIP 110 chaintip would also pay exorbitant fees on the standard chaintip. Probably most BIP 110 proponents will hold back transaction activity and wait for the dust to settle. I wouldn’t be surprised if support for the minority chaintip folds in less than 24h.
Not sure about spam transactions. Yes, most should be priced out, but there might be some attempts to get data into the first signaling block just for sport.
Either way, I expect a lot of people to be watching closely and discussing what’s happening on Saturday.
I expect some small 'inscription' (could just be a random Brc thing) in every post-chaintip block. Meaning that every block will be 'thrown out' by bip-110 nodes correct? So the hardfork will be almost immediate.
Then the forkers nodes will never see another valid block... because the previous block will already have been thrown out. It only takes one transaction from what I understand, almost a given, for the forkers to think the block is invalid meaning that every subsequent block is also invalid and the chains fork immediately.
Then it is on the forkers to generate enough hashrate to actually find blocks on their chain. If miners ignore them then... what?
If I recall the code from half a year ago correctly, all you need to do Saturday is not set bit 4 in the version field to 1. No inscription needed.
They are not yet introducing any rules affecting transactions, they are just rejecting blocks that don't signal.
Mechanic:
source
Sunk cost fallacy. Goodspeed, Bipcoin.
https://twiiit.com/GrassFedBitcoin/status/2084654957693960317
Dathon:
source
https://twiiit.com/dathon_ohm/status/2084661846707929576
I don't have enough popcorn for this
I think the title of this SN post could have been a little more interpretive, perhaps best including the word "prepares"; it doesn't seem from a quick skim that any concrete plans have been made... if they had, I'm guessing that would've been the news.
Developers rebase old code to maintain optionality, improve orthogonality, or sometimes even just as an exercise.
anyway I give myself ten minutes to sanity-check my initial skim, starting... now!
verdict: there's not even a pull request...
sure, "where there's smoke, there's a fire", although in this case, you're only pointing at a circle of stones, long cold from the previous campsite, that were moved closer to the current one.
where's the smoke? ~lol
Guida states "I think we should have this in our back pocket in case miners decide to collude to destroy bitcoin"
Dahsjr states: "Hopefully won't come to that, but probably good to have it prepared just in case."
Mechanic states: "Makes no sense not having it prepared (for all scenarios given how centralized mining is, not just BIP110). If it ends up being necessary and we end up PoW changing...don't threaten me with a good time."
Dathon Ohm states: "I suppose if firing all of the miners is necessary to have miners that will do their job, then so be it."
All shortly after the Guida's post. I maintain that this is clearly evidence of much more than "just as an exercise" -- further, Guida himself in the OP says: "So I've rebased @LukeDashjr's 2017 PoW-change hardfork code onto a recent version of Knots"
My OP title is almost a verbatim what he said. I've been scolded by bip110 supporters before for misinterpreting what they say, so in this case I went with what I thought was a safe path.
RIP110 lol
FAFO means **** around fork off, right!
I thought adlai was a bot, I have it muted, unmute?
adlai is not a bot.
Sorry adlai, unmuted lol 😆
apology accepted, and thank you!
thank you for copying the tweets.
I definitely didn't mean the "just an exercise" in the context of these commits!
they obviously want leverage against miners, although it still seems to me that they are only at the stage of preparing this leverage, just in case it is needed.
I've worn out some of my patience on the topic through many conversations with guida and co, and so I'm probably a little too touchy on it these days. Certainly looking forward to some resolution in the near future.
As foretold by the prophecy…
Then it’s no longer temporary is it?
RDFO
💩🔥
now the del they are using CSAM card, what a losers. they did the same before Bitcoin Core 31 release.
now all redflags for centralizers, bootlickers, censors and controllers resentful of not changing the protocol with their tears and not understanding how a neutral and decentralized money works are hoisted.
Kratter:
source
https://twiiit.com/mattkratter/status/2084670832346042623