They can't match the identity of somebody previously-known through web-of-trust.

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.

Is anyone running it?

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 .

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.

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.

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.

Alright, I think I'm packing it up for the night. But I'll check again in the morning and answer anything that comes in. It's been fun! Thanks for participating!

Coincidence ;)

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.

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.

I do not participate in Saylorism at this point.

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.

Cheers for that! We don't ever want to get too big. We want to keep that intimate feel.

Zero.

Yes. It's critical in this day and age.

I get your view here.

I consider myself a moderate 110 supporter. I have my issues with it, the activation method included. But I'm being pragmatic about it. I don't want to see Bitcoin fracture. I'm certainly not going to follow a hardfork all the way to the end.

At the same time, if it fails, we'll have genuinely learned something. The difference between BIP-148 and BIP-110 will have been made clear. Or more clear.

I'm really proud of BTCHEL. I'm not sure how much it actually did for real adoption, but I had "normie" friends seeing news articles covering the conference and asking me about it.

My book is at least somewhat aimed at an audience outside of Bitcoin.

Those two are the ones I've seen to be most impactful at this point.

I think my anti-spam reasoning is fairly unique. It's an attack on the availability of the system. In cybersecurity, we largely protect Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. DDoS is a form of availability attack. I see spam as a DDoS, and the effect on monetary transactions is the biggest issue with non-monetary transactions.

I find UTXO bloat and especially storage concerns to be largely overblown, and less important than the fee competition.

I appreciate you Derek, looking forward to next time seeing you in person! Open invite to all future editions of BTCHEL, obviously!

Critical systems need you to get out of the way and let them do their job. Security can't degrade performance.

Being both minimalist and non-interventionist are the differences in the approach compared to traditional programming or security.

Although, to some extent, industrial systems are losing some of their constraints and connect to the internet more than ever. It's one reason why my job is challenging.