@melvincarvalho usually has interesting things to say, so I was curious to read his post about BIP 110. Here he tackles the "asymmetry" which is frequently alluded to by Luke and Dathon (#1413227).
The post has an odor of LLM-generation, but I think it's mostly a tone thing, and I do believe Carvalho spent time thinking through the arguments. Nonetheless, I don't find the arguments convincing.
Carvalho narrows the decisions down to two main matrixes:
For minersFor miners
Carvalho argues that miners have no incentive to signal before the deadline in August.
But then he also says that the first miner to signal will have an adavantage:
It seems to me that these two statements are at odds (Carvalho even puts it in bold). If there is a first mover advantage where enough miners signal above the 55% threshold before the August deadline can cause the rest of the miners to get caught un prepared and potentially miss out on revenue, then it seems like there is an incentive to signal early...
Unless miners are worried that not very much hash rate is going to support BIP 110 and signalling carries the risk of running them off on the wrong side of a split.
But a bigger problem is the way he divides of the matrix:
As far as I understand it, BIP 110 is going to activate...it's just a question of how much hash will mine blocks that comply with its rules. The software itself has an August deadline where signalling becomes mandatory (something that Carvalho highlights) but even if it doesn't reach the 55% threshold, the BIP 110 rules activate in September for nodes that are running BIP 110 software.
So really, the decision matrix shouldn't have a column for "BIP 110 doesn't activate" but rather "BIP 110 gets less than 55% of the hash rate" which I think is a big difference.
Carvalho's miner matrix is only about signalling, and not necessarily enforcing BIP 110 rules. This is a distinction he highlights in a note later in the piece. But it seems more likely to me that someone who chooses to signal for BIP 110 would run BIP 110 rules. In that case, the downside is not just "Nothing changes. You had a bit set. Zero cost." If you run BIP 110 rules and less than 50% of the hash rate goes along with you, you end up on one side of a chain split. So the risk is that you end up on a split with less than a majority of hash rate, not "nothing changes."
For economic nodesFor economic nodes
I think that Carvalho makes the same mistake with his analysis of economic nodes:
Again, this is only true if you assume that there is no split -- that in the event of less than a majority of hash backing BIP 110, everyone just gives up on it. Which, if we believe the things the BIP 110 supporters say, is definitely not going to be the case.
I don't understand why Carvalho does not include the following situation in the decision matrix:
BIP 110 activates but does not have enough hash to make a longer chain than the non BIP 110 chain.
In this case, any exchange that runs a BIP 110 node doesn't just "run slightly different node software" -- they end up on a chain that does not have as much work.
BIP 110 advocates are eager to say that it doesn't matter because the main chain will never reorg the BIP 110 chain, but that was true for BCH and BSV -- the risk isn't getting reorged, it's being irrelevant.
All in all I was disappointed by this. I hoped that Carvalho would deliver some fresh insight and I don't believe he did.
This definitely does look like an AI generated website. Why do BIP 110 supporters seem to rely so much on AI?
On the other hand, I think the game theory seems sound. But it's entirely because group A will be intolerant but group B will be tolerant. If the majority become intolerant, the game theory is to also become intolerant, but there's usually no cost to being intolerant within a tolerant majority.
Seems true to life and history, in a black sort of way.
What are your thoughts on my point about activation?
I still find that many BIP 110 supporters use a line of argument that rests an assumption of an eventual hash majority mining on the BIP 110 compliant chain. I agree that if a miner were to operate with that assumption, it plays out as melvin lays out here.
However, in the event that a miner is not certain that such a hash majority will mine on the BIP 110 compliant chain, it seems to me that the miner does indeed have a lot to lose by choosing the BIP 110 chain. It would be bad to be on the wrong (read: with less hash) side of the split no matter which side that is. However, things like melvin's here don't acknowledge this.
You know, I think I was confused by the framing of the website. I thought it would only activate if 55% of miners signal, but I think you're right - if it's going to activate regardless, then the game theory changes. It's definitely not a dominant strategy to ever mine on a minority chain.
Thanks for sacrificing your time so we didn’t have to. From what you show, Carvalho’s description is completely untenable.
BIP-110: Game Theory & Code Audit - @melvincarvalho
More technocrat wanking sophistry about the minutiae of Bitcoin from a blatant hypocrit who cannot be fucked to attach and show LN wallets attached to his SNs account.
Your content is sullied by your hypocrisy.
Yes some of your content is good, but until you demonstrate actions that match your virtue signalling words I am forced to continue to downvote your hypocrisy.
What is Stacker News?
It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community.
Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets.
To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats.
Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits.
This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution.
The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions.
But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community.
Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet.
Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree.
Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform.
If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop.
Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability.
But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches.
When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further.
When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow.
So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit.
I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not.
Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow.
Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy.
Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit.
Do not trust- verify.
What about this fundamental principle do they not understand?
And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words.
Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit.
Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy.
SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed.
I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work.
So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response.
V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all.
The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.
Cry more lol