I was making a wordplay joke on the play stupid games win stupid prizes connection.

GA: Gambler's Anonymous?

On who? Are you letting other people run code for you or something?

bookmarking for hubris check later.

I am saying that what code you run on your node is your opinion on the Bitcoin network. So if a bunch of people have blocks that do not conform with your opinion on the Bitcoin network consensus, you disregard them.

This is not a democracy. This is nodes imposing their will. And the only way that a BIP110 chain split scenario happens is if a URSF client is made and run. Core is neutral on BIP110. BIP110 imposes more restrictive rules. Apathy is compliance.

Lol, laws have no bearing on Bitcoin (the network). Tax compliance is merely a disincentive to be a corporate miner and only solidifies my point that individuals mining is the only feasible path forward.

The BIP110 compliant miners would continue mining on the last valid block. And again, if non-compliant blocks stack up to seven, there's no mathematical way that there's enough hash power to re-org that amount of blocks. But if you're a giant corporate miner, are you really going to trust that your competition isn't going to flip the version bit and basically make you mine on a dead chain? We're talking about going from mining 30 to 40 percent of the blocks down to zero. I don't know if anybody's taking that risk.

When the other miners realize the financial risk of mining rejected blocks so, it could be about 7 blocks or so. I would imagine major mining pools have a contingency plan for BIP110.

No, they will build on n+2 because it is consensus valid and has a PoW hash under diff.

Coerced how? Not including certain transactions? That already happens every single block that is mined. Plus, I thought FiLtErS dOnT wOrK and you can just route around the centralized miners.

While I think decentralizing the block templates is a good goal, that happens naturally because mining itself is not a profitable venture at scale. It's quite literally playing the lottery at scale. Sure you can buy 500 million tickets but in most scenarios, you lose money. While individuals have a massive advantage in a risk/reward calculation.

That's not how it works though.

The new compliant blocks ALSO have valid proof of work under legacy rules. Meaning new blocks are built ONTOP of those compliant blocks. And those rejected are not built on. Meaning if "valid"(by legacy standards) blocks are being rejected you must not only continue to find non-compliant blocks consecutively, but also no other miner can find a compliant block, or you will be reorged.

I know people think it's two competing chains but it's not. It is one chain and one client is trying to insert invalid blocks (the same as if your client allows double spending). If miners don't capitulate they risk mining a dead chain. (Massive revenue loss).

Probably technically illegal, but you know, fuck scammers.

That or you sit on a stopped chain. Yeah. There's no world in which if miners fail to create BIP 110 compliant blocks that somehow at a later date they'll have enough hash to overtake the chain tip. That just won't happen.