So the miners not showing any interest highlights the irony of what bip110 is trying to achieve right?
I think it's still early and making a decision like this takes time and effort, but now the narrative suddenly popped up that there is no reason to signal except for the last period. Which is kind of dumb, because the whole point of the signaling is transparency, not obscurity. But the whole thing is a mess and I find most of the rationale behind the BIP, the supporters' narrative and the toxicity very, very weak, and reeking of misguidance.
I also think that in general, activation clients are overvalued, because switching software isn't a light decision, especially not for a mining pool or an concentrated economic actor (i.e. custody provider.) Reviewing c++ code is hard, and in the BIP-110 case, even harder because it's based off of Knots, which is yet another point of pain.
Most likely I assume that a lot of the commentary on SN is people who have no idea what they are talking about trying to join a discussion with people that do
It's very hard to have a 100% correct idea about it. I've been actively reviewing the Bitcoin Core code for 13 years, I'm a c++ systems programmer, I kind of review c++ "for a living", yet I am never sure. It's complex code and it's always possible to have missed something. For example I missed how the force signaling for the last period was implemented simply because it wasn't done where and how I expected it to be.
So this bip is looking more and more likely a failed attempt
Too soon to tell! All we can do is try to track what's going on.
I think it's still early and making a decision like this takes time and effort, but now the narrative suddenly popped up that there is no reason to signal except for the last period. Which is kind of dumb, because the whole point of the signaling is transparency, not obscurity. But the whole thing is a mess and I find most of the rationale behind the BIP, the supporters' narrative and the toxicity very, very weak, and reeking of misguidance.
I also think that in general, activation clients are overvalued, because switching software isn't a light decision, especially not for a mining pool or an concentrated economic actor (i.e. custody provider.) Reviewing c++ code is hard, and in the BIP-110 case, even harder because it's based off of Knots, which is yet another point of pain.
It's very hard to have a 100% correct idea about it. I've been actively reviewing the Bitcoin Core code for 13 years, I'm a c++ systems programmer, I kind of review c++ "for a living", yet I am never sure. It's complex code and it's always possible to have missed something. For example I missed how the force signaling for the last period was implemented simply because it wasn't done where and how I expected it to be.
Too soon to tell! All we can do is try to track what's going on.