pull down to refresh
Considering the amount of false signaling we saw before segwit and taproot activation, 55% signaling could easily be reached with less than a majority of the hashrate enforcing the new rules. (Assuming there were an expectation for this proposal to come anywhere close to that level of signaling.)
Do you have more data on false signaling? I presume it should be straightforward to identify miners who are doing this.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't provide this data if you are worried BIP-110 will cause disruption, when no one else has indicated that there is cause for concern. Since you don't want to provide it, and since you openly admit to being opposed, I will assume this is FUD.
I was pointing out one reason why a well-reasoned soft fork proposal would avoid such a low activation threshold. I neither said nor implied that I’m worried about RDTS causing disruption. In fact, I explicitly stated my expectation that it will have negligible adoption. Your repeated refusal to engage with reasonable concerns is rather reassuring in that regard.
Seems to me that if there are "malicious miners" they might be willing to try to "waste money" (as you called it in another comment) and refuse to shift over to BIP 110.
You seem to be arguing that few miners would be willing to lose money mining non-BIP 110 blocks after activation BUT also that some significant portion of miners is willing to act maliciously toward BIP 110.