I hate spam/arbitrary data on Bitcoin and believe Bitcoin is the best money every created and that use case should be protected but I also have reservations and observations about BIP-110 and why I believe the UASF will fail. I've said from the beginning (for anyone who can tolerate me talking so much LOL) that I thought this BIP was not specific and targeted enough to garner my support or get consensus. This is not an exhaustive list but these are just a few key points that I keep coming back to. This is not an attack on anyone who supports BIP-110, I'm simply stating my issues with it and why I believe it will fail.
1. The 55% threshold for miners to signal activation is much too low. That is not consensus and should be 75% or higher in my opinion. Futhermore, forcing activation in August, despite not having a 55% consensus is a non-starter and if you have months and months to build up consensus and allow minors to signal and if you don’t get to the low threshold of 55% and you force activate anyway, that isn't right. Essentially, you didn't build consensus over months and instead of taking that as a sign that you shouldn't press forward you activate anyway?!? That's says that you believe you are right despite a large portion of the network choosing not to adopt BIP-110, we are going to force this change on everyone anyway. That sounds kinda tyrannical and not the "Bitcoin way" to me.
2. BIP-110 sets a bad precedent that the rules can be easily changed and even if BIP-110 succeeds and its outcomes are good & noble, the precedent it sets will lead to that precedent being abused for something bad in the future, or for numerous other projects to activate consensus changes. That introduces lots of uncertainty on how all those pieces will interact and possible bugs it introduces into Bitcoin. Attackers could use this as a way to make bad changes within Bitcoin that undermine it, such as tail emissions. If BIP-110 fails, Bitcion OGs, rational contributors, and people who have dedicated their lives to Bitcoin, such as Luke Dashjr, will lose credibility and possibly even leave Bitcion. If BIP-110 succeeds, it means many of us are wrong about Bitcoin being easy to change by a vocal minority and that is scary. Spam sucks but it is not an existential crisis to Bitcoin that requires splitting the network socially and possibly with a chain split. If spam isn't an existential crisis then a UASF is unwarranted. It's a slippery slope to allow bad actors with fiat backers to change Bitcoin via a minority-backed consensus change.
3. Miners respond to incentives and they are not incentivized to change their software. I heard and thought about the intolerant minority and the pros & cons of both sides. However, if you put yourself into the shoes of a miner and imagine their options, they'll choose to just ignore BIP-110. Large mining pools are not hard-core bitcoin maxis with principles, they care about fiat gains and not doing anything to upset their profits. No large miner will signal for BIP-110 because the software and the downstream consequences are untested and what do the miners risk by not signaling? A very, very small % of their profits comes from "spam" and that won't sway them one way or the other. The miners want their 3.125 BTC reward and don't ideologically care about gaining or losing a few hundred dollars for spam transactions. "Economic nodes" will choose not to run a BIP-110 client on their nodes and thus pressure from these entities on the miners won't exist either. The status quo will continue. The belief that for the duration of the soft fork (1 year) that no one, even out of chance and not even a troll Bitaxe miner will mine a BIP-110 non-compliant block at the risk of that block being orphaned is very, very optimistic and the odds of that are microscopic. But it comes down to once BIP-110 activates in August what chain becomes the longer one. Will a non-compliant block be built on top of the longest chain or will it be a BIP-110 compliant block? Yes, miners might switch sides once a good portion 30%+ signals but I don't believe it will ever get close to that because of #4. I believe miners will maintain the status quo, ignore BIP-110 and BIP-110 will see their hash rate support dwindle from 1-2% of miners to 0% as time goes by and as the 1-year UASF "clock" runs out.
4. BIP-110 is essentially only supported by a subset of Knots nodes. If Knots nodes = 20% of the network, BIP-110 nodes will not be higher than this. Yes, nodes control the network and miners mine what nodes tell them to but there are simply not enough nodes to enforce BIP-110, even an intolerant minority of 10% against the other 90%. And if a 10% intolerant minority can change consensus, we have a very serious problem and are vulnerable to state actors attacking bitcoin and making consensus changes that risk bitcoin itself (such as OFAC-compliance).
5. A risk of a chain split if not enough miners signal is not worth the contentious nature of BIP-110 and its "fix" for spam.
6. Both sides are using fear mongering and hyperbole to sway people. Claiming BIP-110 rule changes confiscate/freeze funds is overblown because no one is using OP_IF in a significant way BIP-110 would change and this is hardly some secret attempt by Ocean/Luke/Mechanic to "take over" Bitcoin. And on the other side, the legal risk of spam or CSAM in the blockchain is very much exaggerated since there are questionable things in the blockchain already and not able to be stopped currently. The pro BIP-110 side originally had scary CSAM-legal verbiage for activating the soft work but that was taken out of the BIP after people pushed back, however that justification (overblown fear mongering) is still the primary driver behind it by many involved, even if they don't say that outloud.
7. I don't like the idea of a UASF being temporary. That introduces too much uncertainty on what that will do in a year and thus many nodes and miners won't support it. I believe any soft fork focused on spam should have clear consensus and not try to do too much as this UASF is doing. I'll continue to filter on my node and encourage every node runner to do so as well. If spam is an existential threat, why is this UASF temporary? The change/tightening of the rules is either needed this second and in perpetuity or it isn't a significant threat and the UASF is not necessary. The famous Milton Friedman quote popped into my head, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program". (yes, I understand Bitcoin is not a government program but the point still stands).
8. There is a distinct lack of social consensus around BIP-110 and the reasons for the UASF, why it's a priority and the approach it's taking to mitigate spam. I follow, listen to pocasts/YT videos and read articles and posts from both sides of the debate and this is not a clear cut case as in the Blocksize Wars division. I would be much more willing to support a soft fork that reduces the block size which could help to reduce Spam and that softfork would be more likely to get social consensus since it’s harder and harder to get a consensus change implemented. Forcing one through despite no consensus is anti-bitcoin and this feels more like a petulant child that isn’t getting their way and starts breaking stuff around the house unless their demands are met
9. It tries to do too much too quickly.
10. The real threat is from mining centralization and we need more support for policy choice to block spam and for more block template construction. That would allow spam to be mitigated at the node/policy level and not us having to beg bitcoin Twitter or force miners via a consensus change.
11. A UASF/consensus change is the wrong tool for the job. It’s like using a tomahawk cruise missile to kill a cockroach. true - it sends a signal and acts as a deterrent against spam, but further consensus changes will be needed to mitigate future types of spam or as the spammers adapt their method for spamming the chain, which is why it belongs to policy which is easily adjusted on the node level. Adjusting to various types of spam takes quick action with the addition and tweaking of filters at the node level (filters need to be dynamic) which cannot be accomplished by consensus (which is relatively static).
12. BIP-110 will fail because it’s not a clear miners versus nodes, soft fork; it’s a subset of nodes only. It's not like for SegWit where many miners were taking the position that they wanted to activate SegWit and hard fork and the UASF called their bluff and nodes/plebs activated SegWit before they could hard fork and we forced the miner's hand to accept it.
I love the ideas of a UASF, I just choose not to support this one by running a BIP-110 client myself. I believe this UASF will be a great teaching tool and we will learn more about how Bitcoin truly functions and how all the actors interact and it will ultimately make Bitcoin stronger.
1. The 55% threshold for miners to signal activation is much too low. That is not consensus and should be 75% or higher in my opinion. Futhermore, forcing activation in August, despite not having a 55% consensus is a non-starter and if you have months and months to build up consensus and allow minors to signal and if you don’t get to the low threshold of 55% and you force activate anyway, that isn't right. Essentially, you didn't build consensus over months and instead of taking that as a sign that you shouldn't press forward you activate anyway?!? That's says that you believe you are right despite a large portion of the network choosing not to adopt BIP-110, we are going to force this change on everyone anyway. That sounds kinda tyrannical and not the "Bitcoin way" to me.
2. BIP-110 sets a bad precedent that the rules can be easily changed and even if BIP-110 succeeds and its outcomes are good & noble, the precedent it sets will lead to that precedent being abused for something bad in the future, or for numerous other projects to activate consensus changes. That introduces lots of uncertainty on how all those pieces will interact and possible bugs it introduces into Bitcoin. Attackers could use this as a way to make bad changes within Bitcoin that undermine it, such as tail emissions. If BIP-110 fails, Bitcion OGs, rational contributors, and people who have dedicated their lives to Bitcoin, such as Luke Dashjr, will lose credibility and possibly even leave Bitcion. If BIP-110 succeeds, it means many of us are wrong about Bitcoin being easy to change by a vocal minority and that is scary. Spam sucks but it is not an existential crisis to Bitcoin that requires splitting the network socially and possibly with a chain split. If spam isn't an existential crisis then a UASF is unwarranted. It's a slippery slope to allow bad actors with fiat backers to change Bitcoin via a minority-backed consensus change.
3. Miners respond to incentives and they are not incentivized to change their software. I heard and thought about the intolerant minority and the pros & cons of both sides. However, if you put yourself into the shoes of a miner and imagine their options, they'll choose to just ignore BIP-110. Large mining pools are not hard-core bitcoin maxis with principles, they care about fiat gains and not doing anything to upset their profits. No large miner will signal for BIP-110 because the software and the downstream consequences are untested and what do the miners risk by not signaling? A very, very small % of their profits comes from "spam" and that won't sway them one way or the other. The miners want their 3.125 BTC reward and don't ideologically care about gaining or losing a few hundred dollars for spam transactions. "Economic nodes" will choose not to run a BIP-110 client on their nodes and thus pressure from these entities on the miners won't exist either. The status quo will continue. The belief that for the duration of the soft fork (1 year) that no one, even out of chance and not even a troll Bitaxe miner will mine a BIP-110 non-compliant block at the risk of that block being orphaned is very, very optimistic and the odds of that are microscopic. But it comes down to once BIP-110 activates in August what chain becomes the longer one. Will a non-compliant block be built on top of the longest chain or will it be a BIP-110 compliant block? Yes, miners might switch sides once a good portion 30%+ signals but I don't believe it will ever get close to that because of #4. I believe miners will maintain the status quo, ignore BIP-110 and BIP-110 will see their hash rate support dwindle from 1-2% of miners to 0% as time goes by and as the 1-year UASF "clock" runs out.
4. BIP-110 is essentially only supported by a subset of Knots nodes. If Knots nodes = 20% of the network, BIP-110 nodes will not be higher than this. Yes, nodes control the network and miners mine what nodes tell them to but there are simply not enough nodes to enforce BIP-110, even an intolerant minority of 10% against the other 90%. And if a 10% intolerant minority can change consensus, we have a very serious problem and are vulnerable to state actors attacking bitcoin and making consensus changes that risk bitcoin itself (such as OFAC-compliance).
5. A risk of a chain split if not enough miners signal is not worth the contentious nature of BIP-110 and its "fix" for spam.
6. Both sides are using fear mongering and hyperbole to sway people. Claiming BIP-110 rule changes confiscate/freeze funds is overblown because no one is using OP_IF in a significant way BIP-110 would change and this is hardly some secret attempt by Ocean/Luke/Mechanic to "take over" Bitcoin. And on the other side, the legal risk of spam or CSAM in the blockchain is very much exaggerated since there are questionable things in the blockchain already and not able to be stopped currently. The pro BIP-110 side originally had scary CSAM-legal verbiage for activating the soft work but that was taken out of the BIP after people pushed back, however that justification (overblown fear mongering) is still the primary driver behind it by many involved, even if they don't say that outloud.
7. I don't like the idea of a UASF being temporary. That introduces too much uncertainty on what that will do in a year and thus many nodes and miners won't support it. I believe any soft fork focused on spam should have clear consensus and not try to do too much as this UASF is doing. I'll continue to filter on my node and encourage every node runner to do so as well. If spam is an existential threat, why is this UASF temporary? The change/tightening of the rules is either needed this second and in perpetuity or it isn't a significant threat and the UASF is not necessary. The famous Milton Friedman quote popped into my head, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program". (yes, I understand Bitcoin is not a government program but the point still stands).
8. There is a distinct lack of social consensus around BIP-110 and the reasons for the UASF, why it's a priority and the approach it's taking to mitigate spam. I follow, listen to pocasts/YT videos and read articles and posts from both sides of the debate and this is not a clear cut case as in the Blocksize Wars division. I would be much more willing to support a soft fork that reduces the block size which could help to reduce Spam and that softfork would be more likely to get social consensus since it’s harder and harder to get a consensus change implemented. Forcing one through despite no consensus is anti-bitcoin and this feels more like a petulant child that isn’t getting their way and starts breaking stuff around the house unless their demands are met
9. It tries to do too much too quickly.
10. The real threat is from mining centralization and we need more support for policy choice to block spam and for more block template construction. That would allow spam to be mitigated at the node/policy level and not us having to beg bitcoin Twitter or force miners via a consensus change.
11. A UASF/consensus change is the wrong tool for the job. It’s like using a tomahawk cruise missile to kill a cockroach. true - it sends a signal and acts as a deterrent against spam, but further consensus changes will be needed to mitigate future types of spam or as the spammers adapt their method for spamming the chain, which is why it belongs to policy which is easily adjusted on the node level. Adjusting to various types of spam takes quick action with the addition and tweaking of filters at the node level (filters need to be dynamic) which cannot be accomplished by consensus (which is relatively static).
12. BIP-110 will fail because it’s not a clear miners versus nodes, soft fork; it’s a subset of nodes only. It's not like for SegWit where many miners were taking the position that they wanted to activate SegWit and hard fork and the UASF called their bluff and nodes/plebs activated SegWit before they could hard fork and we forced the miner's hand to accept it.
I love the ideas of a UASF, I just choose not to support this one by running a BIP-110 client myself. I believe this UASF will be a great teaching tool and we will learn more about how Bitcoin truly functions and how all the actors interact and it will ultimately make Bitcoin stronger.
3❤️2
