pull down to refresh
I have not heard a convincing rationale as to why this would be better.
Minimizing disruption?
A 55% threshold will not cause disruption. Everyone will have plenty of time to upgrade.
You do know that just repeating this claim like a mantra doesn’t actually make it so, right?
If someone can argue coherently as to why it's wrong, I will change my mind. I have only heard incoherent FUD up until now.
Incoherent FUD like this proposed guide?
Social consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of rejecting data storage as a use case, and BIP-110 is the best way to accomplish this. If someone finds a better way, I will withdraw BIP-110. Failing that, there is absolutely no reason to oppose BIP-110.
Social consensus is overwhelmingly in favor.
Measured how?
If 2016 blocks is plenty of time to upgrade, why not just have BIP 110 activate 2016 blocks from now?
You cannot be serious.
serious as:
Social consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of rejecting data storage as a use case, and BIP-110 is the best way to accomplish this. If someone finds a better way, I will withdraw BIP-110. Failing that, there is absolutely no reason to oppose BIP-110.
My statement is serious. Yours is not.
BIP-110 is the best way to accomplish this.
absolutely no reason to oppose BIP-100
It's statements like these that get people frustrated with this endeavor. You claim they are serious statements, but it seems pretty clear to me that many people have surface reasonable doubts about the effects of BIP-110. Brushing it all aside by saying "absolutely no reason" is hardly a serious attempt at convincing thinking people to support this BIP.
Isn't it the case that waiting to activate until you see 95% of miners signalling reduces the likelihood of lengthy reorgs?
at 55% of miners, there are still a large chunk of miners who will be mining non-BIP-110 blocks. the 55% will have to reorg out these blocks every time they occur. This seems like it would be a pretty messy process and could go on for quite some time.
I would expect such a situation to result in very few people making any transactions at all, because confirmation becomes highly unreliable.
"at 55% of miners, there are still a large chunk of miners who will be mining non-BIP-110 blocks"
This is a very dubious claim. Why would any miner waste money like this?
Remember, all miners have 2 weeks to upgrade once lock-in occurs, before their blocks will start being orphaned by the network.
So once we have a difficulty period with at least 1109 blocks that signal for BIP 110, we have another 2016 blocks before lock-in occurs?
Does this mean that if there is a difficulty period with at least 1109 blocks signaling for BIP 110, even if the next difficulty period has less than 1109 blocks signaling for BIP 110, then people running the BIP 110 rc will start enforcing BIP 110 rules at the beginning of the next difficulty period?
So, once activated, BIP 110 rules won't be enforced on blocks until the 2017th block?
Lock-in occurs immediately once there is a two-week difficulty adjustment period with at least 1109 signaling blocks. Activation occurs two weeks after lock-in.
There will be a period of mandatory signaling two weeks before the last possible lock-in, which is two weeks before the mandatory activation height.
Does this mean that if there is a difficulty period with at least 1109 blocks signaling for BIP 110, even if the next difficulty period has less than 1109 blocks signaling for BIP 110, then people running the BIP 110 rc will start enforcing BIP 110 rules at the beginning of the next difficulty period?
Yes.
So, once activated, BIP 110 rules won't be enforced on blocks until the 2017th block?
If you mean "once locked in" rather than "once activated", then the answer is yes. "Activation" means the new rules are immediately enforced.
In this case, 55% of the hashrate would be doing the orphaning. That is "the network" by any practical definition.
Is it your opinion that this is really just in the hands of miners now?
Noderunners have nothing further to contribute to the matter?
That isn't what I said, no.
If that's the expectation then it can be set at 95% too?