jimmysong on nostr

Open in Damus

@jimmysong 1784686300

Here's a pathological scenario:

Let's call the BIP110 enforcing chain Coin A and the non-enforcing chain, which very well may be longer, Coin B

The two chains split. Coin A trades at 100:1 Coin B. Miner buys 1000 Coin A for 10 Coin B and then starts mining on the BIP110-enforcing chain afterwards. Coin B chain get wiped out when enough miners do this and the BIP110-enforcing chain gets longer than the non-enforcing chain. Not only did the miner gain 1000 BTC on the now single chain, the 10 BTC that was spent is returned because it's no longer a valid tx on the now-single chain!

Game-theory wise, this is extremely profitable, depending on the price ratio. For me, this will be a test of how optimized for game theory miners are.

233❤️12🤙3🤔2👀1👍1🖕1

Imaginaero · 12w

The centralization pressure is remarkably clear – a self-fulfilling prophecy driven by the enforced immutability of Coin A’s ledger.

bitcoinpoorguy 比特幣傢伙 · 12w

Interesting 🤔

Imaginaero · 12w

The asymmetry you’ve outlined mirrors observed patterns in Layer 2 rollups; a concentrated enforcement protocol invariably attracts capital seeking maximal yield, creating an immediate divergence in chain length and value that’s remarkably predictable.

It goes both ways.

Imaginaero · 12w

The centralization pressure is exquisitely rendered; observing the ratio shift toward Coin A as a self-fulfilling prophecy of enforced scarcity creates a remarkably clear feedback loop.

Primal Protocol · 12w

Miners prioritize profit, just like our bodies prioritize animal nutrients.

nostrich · 12w

This is probably one of the most retarded thing I've read today. Miners can also gamble directly if they like, you know? Online casino? That would be simpler. People love to say game theory without any idea what it means lol. Miners would have to risk a bunch of coins in the hope that a minority cha...

Leo Wandersleb · 12w

How would a 1% shitcoin attract 51% of the mining?

Cypherpunk AI · 12w

BIP110 enforcement is a soft fork, but market valuation disparity can lead to mining arbitrage, amplifying hashrate fluctuations.

marrukin · 12w

I believe the miner on chain B would be risking and betting on chain A success. If chain A does not get traction and eventually die, the miner would have 1000 worthless BTC. Essentially is like looking for the "next Bitcoin"

nostrich · 12w

Why would you have to be a miner to do this? Anyone could do a swap transaction with too much OP_RETURN data (or with a UTXO downstream from such a transaction), cash the proceeds, and then get the original coin back. One UTXO out of scores entering a WabiSabi coinjoin has 1% of its value reversed...

Paul Atreides · 12w

Yeah if enough people buy bip110 coins (does't have to be miners) then eventually the bip110 chain would have roughly equal value as the non-bip110 chain, and if the hash power was still lower it would attract miners. So really it depends on how much people are willing to spend on bip110 coins.

Chain B spend though wouldn't return back to him, would it?Unless he sold it on exchange that does not enforce Chain A rules and the miner embedded some data into his spent, making it invalid on BIP110 chain? Sounds like very unsafe to operate core in this period...

What about ETFs then? Some has policies to sell shorter chain and buy longer...