They've all made such a fucking mess of everything. Hope they feel proud

Read more. This is not true.

Not automatically on day 1. But the first time 110 rejects a block you get 2 chains.

Man im hoping for a hard fork to get more sats

This fork is so dumb you won't even be able to sell your doubled up coins. View quoted note →

Does this mean that BIP-110 will be a shorter chain and the “Original” bitcoin will keep on chugging along? Or is it the fear that BIP-110 will be the longest chain? I thought the initial intent of all of this was to figure out a way to reduce data? Who has a better plan than what is already out there? It doesn’t seem like anyone. Can we find a solution to make it attractive for Bitcoin transactions to be the dominant type of transactions and not anything else? #runbip110 #bitcoin #mynodemyrules

Bitcoin tends to be streangthed by attacks

Indeed. Nature of the incentives suggests that should carry on but ffs

110 can't be longer by definition. It rejects blocks that core accepts. So unless they have a majority of hashrate significant enough to overcome rejected blocks making them shorter, it can't be longer. Current generous estimates are they have 2% of hash.

So if a majority of the hashrate will be on the current chain then no one will lose out right? Or has it been leaked that 2 of the Chinese pools (no names published) are definitely going to activate just before launch? I probably shouldn’t do this, but BIP-110 is the new chain and the hash rate will be there. I’m not guessing on this. #runbip110

For the record, Lets call it the “Core chain” accepts all of BIP-110 blocks. So when BIP-110 mines a block it is on the “Core chain.” Which means (not that I have inside knowledge) that miners might choose the path of least resistance and move to BIP-110 because it is valid on the future Bitcoin Chain. Right?

110 rejects blocks that core doesn't. Core will never try to build on a shorter chain tip. As soon as 110 rejects a single block 110 nodes and miners are on a shorter chain tip, core won't follow. They can never become 1 thing again.

Let's not be conservative about how far 110 will fall behind. 110 will literally reject close to every single block that Core currently finds valid. So much that the 110 chain block time will be hours. Transactions will take whole days to get deep enough in the chain to be considered safely confirmed.

It would be very interesting if bitcoin forks and it's the Chinese mining all the Bitcoin while everyone else is retarded and mines the core30spamcoin.

Core30 people should move to BCH chain instead of trying to recreate it.

I can see the logic on this one. So what is behind the curtain is… As long as nodes don’t move to Bip-110, then miners won’t and Bip-110 is dead before it launches. I thought the purpose of a user activated soft fork is that the nodes upgrade to signal what they want and the miners follow what the nodes want? I wasn’t here for the UASF so I don’t know. I’m just asking.

So what would be the miners incentive to stay on legacy chain vs Bip-110 chain. I guess they aren’t different chains since it is a soft fork. So what would be the incentive to signal or not signal for BIP-110?

That would be interesting indeed.

Nobody was here for the UASF. It never activated on August 1, 2017. What's crazy to me is that BIP-110 advocates are acting like this is established game theory when it's not. They think all the success parameters are in place for a repeat of a fork that never happened, and when they are missing hash rate and nodes with economic weight.

(with, like what? 6 weeks to mount any credible threat to non-compliant miners?)

Longer chain equals more block rewards. So the miners are incentivized to stay on the more permissive chain.

Well, that makes sense.

In my case it isn’t a thought of automatic success. It is a case of ignorance on how things work behind the scenes, but a strong desire for Bitcoin to stay money. I swear if Core developers brought a solution to the public forum I would give it a long hard look and put the same amount of energy into seeing if it is viable. I have no idea if bip-110 will activate, survive, or die on arrival. It is the only option to reduce the data that is out there.

Valid point.

Information theory is clear. You'll never stop the "spam" 110 breaks multiple financial uses and can't actually stop anyone from placing arbitrary data, only changes the structure of that data. Don't forget the main guy driving all of this used to put bible verses and Catholic prayers in his transactions. Your arbitrary data is spam and mine is good.

There is no 100% in anything in this life that I know of except death. So the goal is not to erase spam 100%. The goal is to disincentivize those that have dominated the increase in UTXO size so that it stays as small as possible for as long as possible. I can’t speak for everyone, I can only speak for me. I am looking 40 to 80 years out. At this rate the RAM requirements on computers will need to be 128GB to process the blockchain when it quadruples from here. Which means my children will need to have crazy amounts of computing power to run a node. Not to mention that those around the world that don’t have the access to capital that we do in the U.S. won’t be to run a node as easily. I asked AI and they say that when Eligius put… *"Eligius )Benedictus Sanguis eius pretiosissimus.." into block 139,904 on the chain: Bitcoin block requires 0 extra data if you are a miner putting it in the coinbase, but it requires 52 bytes if you use an OP_RETURN script in a standard user transaction. So the 2 types of spam are located in different locations with different purposes. What Eligius wrote was in the same space that every miner uses to put their pool name when they mine a block. So no matter which miner does this there is a dedicated space for this which adds no more data storage on nodes. When users send a transaction that they have to hide it in an op if, op false, op return, ect. They are making everyone store more data on their nodes for free and they are not pushing bitcoin as money forward. @Rich Nost @n0>1 signals bip110 #bitcoin #runbip110 #rdts

110 breaks multiple financial uses and can't actually stop anyone from placing arbitrary data, only changes the structure of that data. So if this line is true, then Luke doesn’t care if up to 80 of data is on the chain. He just wants to limit the 100k on the chain? That sounds reasonable to me.