pull down to refresh

I have not heard a convincing rationale as to why this would be better.

Minimizing disruption?

reply

A 55% threshold will not cause disruption. Everyone will have plenty of time to upgrade.

reply
103 sats \ 20 replies \ @Murch 6 Jan

You do know that just repeating this claim like a mantra doesn’t actually make it so, right?

reply

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.

reply

Incoherent FUD like this proposed guide?

reply
1 sat \ 17 replies \ @dathon_ohm 7 Jan -21 sats

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.

If 2016 blocks is plenty of time to upgrade, why not just have BIP 110 activate 2016 blocks from now?

reply
1 sat \ 10 replies \ @dathon_ohm 7 Jan -21 sats

You cannot be serious.

@remindme in 265 days

reply

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.

reply

"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?

reply
10 sats \ 6 replies \ @dathon_ohm 6 Jan -21 sats

Remember, all miners have 2 weeks to upgrade once lock-in occurs, before their blocks will start being orphaned by the network.