Earlier this week they turned off their swap server, apparently for the same reason Boltz did: a malicious actor started automated probing their infrastructure for weaknesses, and found some, and it was becoming clear that the code wasn't production ready. If I had to guess, the same thing has happened again, but with other things they were running on the same server.

That is not always true. For example, consider the coinbase txs on the 110 chain, and any txs descended from them. Non-110 nodes will only accept those txs if the blockchain they are in has more proof of work than the non-110 chain. That looks very unlikely, so this will probably result a chain split where some txs on the 110 chain are rejected on the non-110 chain, and vice versa.

Your new rules would ruin bitcoin by potentially freezing the funds of innocent users. My mindset is to oppose such efforts. I hope y'all fix bip110 and try again later. Maybe y'all can get more support with a better bip.

It will only activate on nodes that are running bip110, and those nodes will stop accepting bitcoin blocks almost immediately after they activate the new rules. Leading to yall being on a dead chain with no blocks, no exchange support, and no network effect. Sayonara.

It's plausible, but unlikely imo. I suspect 95% or more of miners aren't concerned about this fork. They are unlikely to signal unless they suddenly gain an interest in doing so, and nome seems forthcoming. It's probably not even a discussion point in their decision making meetings.

I suspect that, other than miners who are already part of Ocean, any miners who *do* analyze their options during decision making meetings will discuss it in terms of two options -- signal or ignore -- and they'll decide that ignoring it improves their bottom line. This is because, if they ignore the 110ers, about 2% of miners will fork off, and cease to be competition. That means the relative share of hashrate from the remaining miners effectively grows, which means they earn more money.

In other words, if a miner named Billy currently has 10 exahash, and the entire bitcoin network together has 1000 exahash, then Billy has 1%. The pro110ers seem to have about 20 exahash, which is around 2%. But they are about to effectively go offline, bringing the total down to 980. So if Billy just ignores this, he'll end up with 10 exahash out of 980, which is 1.02% -- a slight increase. That should make Billy more profitable, so my naive analysis of game theory suggests miners who have ignored this drama so far will want to continue to ignore it once mandatory signaling starts.

The best marketing is true