Damus
Open in Damus
Super Testnet · 1d
Ah yes, I forgot about the mandatory signaling period. Still, if miners keep ignoring BIP110 they may be in for a rude surprise in September: a sudden, completely avoidable loss of income from BIP110...
 Aaron van Wirdum profile picture
Aaron van Wirdum @Aaron van Wirdum
I doubt it would represent a significant loss, and in fact I suspect that adopting BIP110 would harm the value of bitcoin more than losing these people would. But without fork futures markets --which I'm very much in favour of!-- it's anyone's guess unless and until there actually is a split.

(That's another argument for a URSF btw, it would enable a very well defined fork futures market.)

1♥1
Super Testnet · 1d
> I doubt it would represent a significant loss It sounds like you don't think the loss will be significant but otherwise agree with my premise -- that miners are incentivized to signal for BIP110 *if* they judge that the loss of revenue due to a split outweighs the loss of revenue due to enforcing...
Tauri · 11h
> I suspect that adopting BIP110 would harm the value of bitcoin more Stay in your lane and try not to opine on economic topics. You’re out of your depth.