> Anyway, chain split probability is low

This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. On what do you base it? Do you think that the high rate (90%, 95%) of signalling used for past soft forks was chosen because people thought the numbers looked pretty?

And while I have you: this business of defining anyone who disagrees with you as "malicious" is petty. If a miner wishes to continue using their hashrate to mine with rules that sync with the current bitcoin blockchain, that is their choice. 

It is your choice to call such a miner malicious, but it sounds childish.

There could coexist 2 chains with 40% (A) and 60% (B) of the pre-split hashrate. Neither of the chains would probably sacrifice their hashrate to attack each other (reorg).

Anyway, chain split probability is low. Most probably malicious miners won't attempt a hardfork in the wake of the activation of the BIP-110.

gregtonoski

My question had to do with Luke's statements.

I have tried to understand these statements, but I don't see how they can be true...unless one assumes that enough hashrate will soon join the BIP110 side so they have more than 51%.

But if that is the necessary assumption, I don't understand why one would make the claim that "under 50% could work"

Additionally, I have not gotten an even remotely reasonable answer about why a non BIP110 chain must counterfork (and not just ignore) if it has more than 51% of hashrate.

If you can explain either of these positions, I'd be very grateful.

bitcoin

The asymmetric advantage of a BIP-110 fork

Scoresby

My question had to do with Luke's statements.

1. "Mining against a BIP110 chain requires them to counter-fork."
2. "Technically under 50% could work too"

I have tried to understand these statements, but I don't see how they can be true...unless one assumes that enough hashrate will soon join the BIP110 side so they have more than 51%.

But if that is the necessary assumption, I don't understand why one would make the claim that "under 50% could work"

Additionally, I have not gotten an even remotely reasonable answer about why a non BIP110 chain must counterfork (and not just ignore) if it has more than 51% of hashrate.

If you can explain either of these positions, I'd be very grateful.