Even though I’ve been running Knots and BIP110 for months, I still expect it to fail because 15% of nodes is probably not high enough. I also don’t necessarily think its failure means miners automatically have control. It might simply mean that the node % wasn’t high enough. Ex. Unless I’m missing something obvious, if miners want to cancel the next halving, add tail emissions, etc, then we can expect 99%+ of nodes to reject that. What if 10% of nodes wanted a UASF? 5%? 1%? What’s the threshold where if it’s rejected, then miners have proven control? It’s subjective and hard to say. You could compare it to BIP148, also around 15%, but two UASF scenarios will never be same.

Replies (4)

There will be URSF against malicious take over. BIP-110 is great for Bitcoin and everyone knows it but bad actors are affected and they scream now. I expect BIP-110 to win.
Also Coretards will tell you that 35% is not enough because is less than 50%. Have you noticed that they say 55% is not enough because its not 95%?
DireMunchkin's avatar
DireMunchkin 1 week ago
I am cautiously optimistic - As you point out BIP-148 had about the same level of adoption. And it acted as a forcing function for the same upgrade as a MASF. But we will test the game theory out soon enough.