pull down to refresh
Implicitly, I think his position is that without RDTS, the main chain will become so unusable/undesirable that only the RDTS chain will survive to achieve bitcoin's intended purpose, even if it falls behind in chainwork for a time period.
I think he might be waiting for an extremely long time, possibly infinity. Blockspace is not in high demand, so there's no immediate reason for people to adopt RDTS. And it's not clear when/if demand for blockspace will recover. Lightning continues to mature.
In fact, I"m a lot more worried about lack of demand for monetary transactions, as a threat to Bitcoin's future, than I am about too much demand for storing data on the chain.
If such is his position (and I think it's as good an interpretation as any) I still think it's not being entirely honest to say that people must counterfork...indeed, to flash a warning that if you don't counterfork or else you will be "insecure." That just sounds like trying to scare people into doing what you want them to do.
Either way if you don't want to be on an island, you don't make "your own hardfork". You need consensus on what that hard fork will be.
But a hard fork is not the only solution. You can position for doublespending your coin as long as there is a split chaintip. Every sat that is valid on both chaintips you can spend to a 1-byte-too-large OP_RETURN (must be a scriptPubKey solution.) Or funnier, you can orchestrate a massive coinjoin on their tip with a single doublespent utxo in the history and then all the involved coins will be doublespendable.
Doublespend as a service, anyone? You pay my coordinator 10k sats, I coinjoin you in with my unspendable utxo on mainchain and woop, now you have mutually incompatible sats on both chaintips as insurance for a rollback. And this is just a basic mitigation.
If Luke & co thought that they can fa without the fo... lmao
Yeah, I agree that that "Caution" pop up is inappropriately worded.
I try to not read Luke's words anymore because they make me very very sad from an empathy pov. I can't help him. That last sentence in the last reply sets out the massive barrier sitting between my sympathy and Luke's current worldview.
This really gets me. Luke said this thing again a couple days ago on X, and eventually agreed that it is true only if BIP 110 has a significant amount of hashrate but then immediately retreated to "there is zero reason to reject RTDS"
source
it is not the case that you must implement your own rejection fork if you do not like BIP 110.