I think it’s probably negligible and if they’re really concerned they probably just email the top three mining pools to confirm they have no intention to signal. I think it’s safe to assume they don’t though, especially after Foundry’s email confirming their default mode is to not signal.

Let's be precise. There's a non-0.0% chance of chaos. 0.3 rounds to 0.

What does 0.3 represents here? 🤔

The miner signalling. Last I checked it was at 0.3%. Bitcoin will only be disrupted if that goes up to 50%. Luke-Coin can peacefully exist along Bitcoin if no more than 33% are reached. If the 50% are reached quickly, Luke's rules get merged into Bitcoin smoothly, which would be somewhat disruptive but certainly better than some 45% forking off. So 0.3 is not the likelyhood of drama. I just made a joke around that number being 0 at first approximation.

It’s been over 1% for weeks. Still you’re looking at the wrong number here.

With two weeks to go, "1% since weeks" sounds worse for bip110 than a recent up-tick to 1%.

There's a non-zero chance your house gets obliterated by a meteorite today. How much effort are you going to put into preparing for that event? 😏

I know how it sounds. Again, you’ve been looking at the wrong number here. The real threshold for BIP110 was always 0% hash. 55% is just a courtesy to the miners if they wanted to activate this early instead of the users. They can still do this in the next two weeks. And I believe they will. If they don’t, then there’s gonna be violence.

Actually, Jimmy Song mentioned this in passing today. Are exchanges walking blindly into a cliff? Or just waiting to see how pools decide to play it? 👀 View quoted note → View quoted note →

The way these two clowns were quick to downplay Jimmy’s concern here makes me think this is an *actual* problem for the exchanges. 🤔 View quoted note →

How would it be any different than the BCH hardfork? Genuinely asking.

Exchanges will become dumping grounds for spam chain. Ride-or-dies will keep their Bitcoin and take the money and run.

The thread is about serious issues. Some Luke-Coin with 1% or 20% of the hash rate will not be disruptive. It will be a clean fork.

Ok 👍

Bip110 won't change anything. That's the point. Push core to make a hardfork/push core to reverse their changes to node software

Miners run on thin margins and will likely pick up long OP_RETURN's if they (as is likely) pay more per vbyte. They will switch to whichever exchange will take such blocks, or whichever takes them at the least discount. If the vbyte premium at mining time exceeds the discount at exchange time, BIP110 quietly dies. Whatever happens, price discovery on the risk premium will quickly lay bare how much influence the BIP110-ers actually have. For all we know, the major mining operations have contract terms on what the definition of BTC is, and I have a hard time thinking a court will favor an upstart with less than 1% miner signaling against Bitcoin Core.

BCH was a clean hard fork. There was no wipeout risk for the BTC chain if the BCH chain became longer. BIP110 is a chain divergence and BIP110 chain coins are valid on the legacy chain, but the opposite isn’t true. In theory the BIP110 can exist for months or years along the legacy chain, and presuming blocks are still added on the bip110 chain, the longer this divergence persists, the higher the risk of wipeout becomes for the legacy chain.

i am not sure that is correct. a few spammy blocks and bip110 chain work diverges enough. guaranteed there is thousands of hipster monkey jpg all ready to go. 12% of the chain will diverge. that is only hours. this is why i have been saying the missing schnorr signature with hashed address changes the balance. spammy blocks have lower fees. removing the witnss discount would bias bip110 chain fee payload even more. but everyone has been persuaded to accept antispam mempool filtering instead of a more compact quantum resistant schnorr signature. the disabling of uasf is right at the bottom. and no elimination of witness discount. it is a trojan horse to protect their golden goose. spam is just a smokescreen for bitvm

plus, when chain work drops on bip110 chain, it can't lead to stay best chain. core chain holders leverage this - exchanges run the now forking bip110 chain because commissions are commisions. coretatds dump all their coins once exchanges recognise the split and add the fork, and bip110 is excommunicated.

and second level. if miners can dump minted bipcoins, they will sell them faster because they are additinal revenue after maturity. the coretards will sell nfts and dump bipcoins. the miners will sell less corecoins because bip110 serves them an airdrop on a weaker chain.

economic incentives favor core. because bip11p doesn't eliminate witness discount or offer a credible alternatuve for taproot. morals always fail when game rules favor the mercenary. uncentives.