#BIP110 didn't fail because of "corrupt" miners, nor did it fail due to miners "colluding" with one another. Although I do agree that miner centralization could pose a risk, I don't think that the bippers are correct in calling the miners corrupt over the failure of BIP110 to activate. The failure to activate was a due to a lack consesus among the broader node community.

I'm a pleb. I'm not a cryptographer, nor am I a software developer in any way. This post is mostly just testing and articulating my understanding of the Bitcoin network. If I'm correct in my understanding of the #WhitePaper and how the #Bitcoin network operates, then the following is true:

1. Nodes provide the rules for the Bitcoin network through reaching an independent agreement (consensus) of what is and isn't allowed. They communicate these rules to the miners.

2. Miners try to brute force guess the magic number to mine the next block for the timechain. They also create templates for what information they want to put into the block. Generally being monetary transactions based on fees, but also "spam" or other inscriptions (“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks” inscribed by Satoshi). Miners can also choose not to include transactions, spam, or inscriptions based on their own criteria. Which is why controlling enough hash to assure your transactions get through is important.

3. If 51% or more of the nodes are in agreement of what the rules of the network are, they have consensus.

4. A miner who tries to submit a block that violates the consensus will have that block rejected by the nodes with consensus, and therefore rejected by the Bitcoin network. If there are nodes that would otherwise accept that block, the minority nodes fork off. Or vice versa, the majority network with consensus accepts a block, while the minority nodes may reject a block, causing the minority to fork off.

BIP110 forked off because they didn't have majority node consensus. They composed a minority consensus with one another rejected a block that was considered acceptable to the majority of nodes, and forked off.

I don't think changing the #PoW (proof of work) of #BTC is the correct solution. For BIP110 (or any other BIP) to succeed, I think they need to:

1. Acquire majority consensus with the nodes all signaling for an upcoming rule change.

2. After acquiring consensus through signaling for the change, they need to put out a specific block height for the change to go effective, and broadcast it to as many node runners signaling for the BIP as possible.

3. After step two they should notify the miners of an upcoming consensus rule change, and warn them (miners) that blocks submissions that are not compliant with the new consensus will be rejected by the network after the specified block height.

Is that all correct? #AskNostr #AskBTC

This is the exact reaction I had when I found out the Bippers want to change the proof of work for Bitcoin.

I was taught that six block confirmations of an on chain transaction solidify it.

Tick tock next block.