pull down to refresh
I support BIP-110 and am signaling for it for many reasons. I will not support a split chain though. I think when activated there will be a critical 10-20 blocks that determine where this goes.
To expand a bit. I think that there will be a clear heavier chain. If it's not the BIP-110 it would be too bad but it's not fatal imo. There are other ways to fix/improve things.
I think that too, yes - there's plenty things to do.
I've suggested to change the threshold up to just make it safe, as even a "signal" - as the BIP-110 author put it here on SN - would still be clear when it's 20% and doesn't activate. But my reasoning fell on deaf ears. I worry about the 55% and the hard deadline for something that's supposed to be a signal - it's an invitation for acts of bad faith from all sides, and that makes it very toxic.
No matter how toxic the camps, a long reorg serves no one in any camp, it just hurts.
55% would be a big deal and I think it would become the longer quickly. I really doubt it will fall into a gray area. The reality is the miners will choose the path that has the least risk.
BTW - the 55% threshold is the direct result of not giving Foundry, Antpool, F2Pool, or ViaBTC veto power. Too many people have given all of the power to the pools. This is the real fundamental problem.
I agree that that is the fundamental problem much more than all the softfork proposals. If everyone would make their own templates, there would be no need for BIP-110. And even more important: there would be no need to play dangerous games with chaintips and then blame it on the competition being too powerful.
I personally hope that BIP-110 fails, simply because I highly dislike the quality of the proposal and implementation choices made, and I really dislike people telling others what to do. It doesn't matter to me if the wannabe-dictator is Core removing a config option or Knots telling me the conditions to my block template, they're both equally bad.
Hopefully we can fix this with block template sovereignty in the long run, so that no one needs to tell anyone else what they can do, and we can instead enjoy strength because people (that's really the key word) have been empowered to act on their beliefs within the greater system.
Hey Bob,
I have a question about your support for BIP-110: since you've been mining with the versionbit enabled, does this mean you're truly committed? How far are you willing to take this?
For example if the fork fails to get the already extremely weak 55% and you will be mining a minority chaintip, will you shrug away the coin loss from subsidy and bet on an eventual reorg (with all consequences that come with that), or will you revert to non-BIP110 mining?
Thanks!