Imma call this the post-110 pump.
Aaron van Wirdum
npub1art8...m0w5
Author of The Genesis Book.
Former Editor-in-Chief at Bitcoin Magazine.
The testnet forkwar to determine PoW algo for Bitcoin-jr is more exciting than the BIP110 fork war itself was tbh.
Bdashers decided to use a testnet block header to randomly determine the proof-of-work algorithm for their forkcoin, but now testnet has been forked and they don’t know what to pick. (lol)
Did investigative reporter @hodlonaut put out his 10,000 word plebslop report on miner collusion yet?
Just in case the Bdashers’ wipeout argument does stick around: Bitcoin nodes can always reject the BIP110 chain even in the *extremely* unlikely scenario that it would overtake the Bitcoin chain at some point, by running bitcoin-cli invalidateblock 0000000000000000000169eb6f811ddbd0daf343af7b62180cdb13e7c78dbc16.
Dusted off that pen to explain what could happen when Bitcoin Knots starts rejecting blocks that don’t signal support for BIP110 this weekend.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin's BIP110 Moment: Three Possible Scenarios (Updated)
Will BIP110 fail, activate, or split Bitcoin? A look at the three most likely outcomes.
BIP110 can as of now no longer be activated through hash power signaling.
The "mandatory signaling" window starts next week, which practically speaking means Bitcoin Knots nodes will stall and/or fork off-- unless basically all miners suddenly decide to adopt this nonsense after all.
fork-observer
Repost for Nostr.
Luke's fierce battle visualized on bip110.com.
"YOU MUST URSF IF YOU'RE AGAINST BIP110!!"
Investigative journalist @hodlonaut working on his CAPTURE series.
DMND, the Stratum V2 mining pool, just mined its first block.
The Mempool Open Source Project®
Explore the full Bitcoin ecosystem with The Mempool Open Source Project®. See the real-time status of your transactions, get network info, and more.
The failure of BIP110 will reveal that social media drama is just noise and I think that's wonderful.
In a new episode of What Bitcoin Did with @Danny Knowles, @Bitcoin Mechanic talks about the game theory behind BIP110, which he believes makes it virtually guaranteed to succeed.
There was a lot of discussion about these dynamics in anticipation of the Segwit UASF (BIP148) in 2017; I for example wrote this article about it at the time: 
Note however that I at the start of that article laid out the assumptions for this game theory to play out. Arguably none of these assumptions hold up for BIP110.
1) The hash power support for BIP110 is incredibly low (significantly lower than for Segwit), and I don’t believe these miners will continue to mine a minority chain long enough for the difficulty to return to normal.
2) IMO BIP110 is a harmful upgrade, therefore I expect the market to value “110BTC” less than “LegacyBTC”. (This is the important one btw.)
3) BIP110 is more niche than BIP148 was, so a smaller percentage of users and miners will be aware of any game theory to act on even if that was rational.
4) In the unlikely event that a wipe-out of the legacy chain becomes a realistic possibility I would expect users and/or miners who oppose BIP110 to deploy some kind of checkpoint in order to prevent this.
TL;DR: BIP110 nodes will probably fork themselves off the network when mandatory signaling starts, and either end up on a dead chain or become a forkcoin (that would likely require further protocol changes to then stay alive).
Bitcoin Magazine
Op Ed: Here's Why All Rational Miners Will Activate SegWit Through BIP148
A segment of the Bitcoin community is preparing a user activated soft fork (UASF), using Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 148 (BIP148). If they go through
In a new episode of What Bitcoin Did with @Danny Knowles, @Bitcoin Mechanic talks about the game theory behind BIP110, which he believes makes it virtually guaranteed to succeed.
There was a lot of discussion about these dynamics in anticipation of the Segwit UASF (BIP148) in 2017; I for example wrote this article about it at the time:
Note however that I at the start of that article laid out the assumptions for this game theory to play out. Arguably none of these assumptions hold up for BIP110.
1) The hash power support for BIP110 is incredibly low (significantly lower than for Segwit), and I don’t believe these miners will continue to mine a minority chain long enough for the difficulty to return to normal.
2) IMO BIP110 is a harmful upgrade, therefore I expect the market to value “BIP110 coin” less than “LegacyBTC”. (This is the important one btw.)
3) BIP110 is more niche than BIP148 was, so a smaller percentage of users and miners will be aware of any game theory to act on even if that was rational.
4) In the unlikely event that a wipe-out of the legacy chain becomes a realistic possibility I would expect users and/or miners who oppose BIP110 to deploy some kind of checkpoint in order to prevent this.
TL;DR: BIP110 nodes will probably fork themselves off the network when mandatory signaling starts, and either end up on a dead chain or become a forkcoin (that would likely require further protocol changes to then stay alive).
Bitcoin Magazine
Op Ed: Here's Why All Rational Miners Will Activate SegWit Through BIP148
A segment of the Bitcoin community is preparing a user activated soft fork (UASF), using Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 148 (BIP148). If they go through
The German translation of The Genesis Book is now available for preorder!
Ganz toll.
Genesis | Aprycot Media