@Aaron van Wirdum
Author of The Genesis Book.
Former Editor-in-Chief at Bitcoin Magazine.
No relay list published yet.
Recent Notes
> 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 *i...
Yes I agree with your premise.
I would also encourage the development of a URSF for that reason, if you (or anyone else) don't consider it a waste of your time and effort.
I would also encourage the development of a URSF for that reason, if you (or anyone else) don't consider it a waste of your time and effort.
♥1
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...
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.)
(That's another argument for a URSF btw, it would enable a very well defined fork futures market.)
♥1
Last I checked BIP110 will have a mandatory signaling window in August, so if miners don’t signal, BIP110 nodes will in fact fork themselves off the network.
Your scenario could still happen if min...
(To be precise I think the 1109th signaling block within a difficulty window should be rejected, as that would bring it over the 55%-threshold, and makes for a relatively clean split between the BIP110 chain and the original chain.)
♥1
What if they don't signal support for BIP110 but just stop mining txs that violate the BIP110 rules, to avoid losing 8% of their users? I don't want OP_IF in taproot to become "effectively invalid" ju...
Last I checked BIP110 will have a mandatory signaling window in August, so if miners don’t signal, BIP110 nodes will in fact fork themselves off the network.
Your scenario could still happen if miners do signal (which non-BIP110 won’t care about one way or the other). That’s why IMO it’s still good to pay attention to signaling, and if there is any it’s probably time to start considering a URSF.
The worst case scenario is if miners don’t signal until very shortly before the mandatory signaling period starts. (Or even when it’s already started.) In that case I suppose the rejectblock command can still offer a solution, but it’d be a bit of a last-minute scramble…
Your scenario could still happen if miners do signal (which non-BIP110 won’t care about one way or the other). That’s why IMO it’s still good to pay attention to signaling, and if there is any it’s probably time to start considering a URSF.
The worst case scenario is if miners don’t signal until very shortly before the mandatory signaling period starts. (Or even when it’s already started.) In that case I suppose the rejectblock command can still offer a solution, but it’d be a bit of a last-minute scramble…
1♥1
One way to do a URSF is to reject the block *after* BIP110's activation block unless it contains a tx that violates one of BIP110's restrictions. If enough people run it, miners have to choose: make t...
No miners are currently signaling support for BIP110, so investing time and effort in developing a URSF client seems like a waste of time and effort at this time (to me, anyways).
Much easier to just use the rejectblock command post-fork if a BIP110 block that forks the chain is ever mined.
Much easier to just use the rejectblock command post-fork if a BIP110 block that forks the chain is ever mined.
🤔1
We cannot keep it open & censorship resistent if devs decide the rules in a top down fashion & remove decentralized ways for nodes to set policy. All while openly communicating hostility toward a majo...
Devs can't do that.
They can only release free and open source software that users can then voluntarily decide to run-- or not.
They can only release free and open source software that users can then voluntarily decide to run-- or not.
🤙1
I am not really in favor of bip110, I prefer the progress that was being made with filters & Knots & DATUM. But most of the OG bitcoiners I know are opposed to spam. It's actually ONLY people prominen...
Yes most OG Bitcoiners are against arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin. That’s why we fought to keep blocks small. F(r)ee market economics should do the rest in an open, permissionless and censorship resistant system.
1🤙3
The only consistent people in #bitcoin are the people who have been trying to keep node operation as light as possible & limit data costs so that the network will remain decentralized & censorship pro...
Name one prominent small blocker from the block size war era besides Luke who's now in favour of BIP110?
3❤️1🤙🏻1
Core supporters doing the same by labeling knots and bip110 as the bcashers.
The sad thing is that core got us into this med mess by being more aligned with the spammers then the community.
No, they’re mostly newer Bitcoiners— but my experience with them is very reminiscent of what I dealt with when engaging with big blockers back in the day. (The simplistic talking points, the misattribution of authority to Bitcoin Core, the conspiracy-fueled outrage…)
You just provided a few examples of this in your post as well.
You just provided a few examples of this in your post as well.
The freedom to exit is the final arbiter of truth. Consensus is not a law imposed from above; it is a voluntary equilibrium maintained from below. To run incompatible software is to declare a new real...
Pretty much! I contextualize Bitcoin as a spontaneous order in The Genesis Book. (“Shared hallucination” sounds a bit dismissive IMO.)
1
Doesn’t every node runner vote on what software they use?
Not unless you mean it in a “voting with your feet” kind of way.
Everyone can just use whatever software they want. Including software that is incompatible with the Bitcoin protocol.
Everyone can just use whatever software they want. Including software that is incompatible with the Bitcoin protocol.
2
