“Bdash” and “Dashcash” in the lead 😂 View quoted note →

Having been off Bitcoin Twitter/X for almost 4 years now, I did not keep up at all with the BIP110 issue until just recently. I only started looking into now to understand anything I might need to be aware of for my own bitcoin while they attempted to activate. I’m genuinely surprised by the names that keep turning up as strong supporters of BIP110, and I’m mind blown that some of them are continuing to support it toward a hard fork. View quoted note →

You either slay your heroes, or you live long enough to see them become the villain.

“Dear miners, sorry we hijacked your hashrate without permission to mine our forked chain. But don’t worry, we’ll refund you in actual bitcoin, even though we keep insisting that our impending hard fork is the real bitcoin.” 😂🤦‍♂️

Where are the “It’s just a soft fork” people? 😂

BIPs shouldn’t be easy to implement. Consensus shouldn’t be easy to change. The debate about spam is valid. The idea that a small group of people should be able to ram through a soft fork without wide support isn’t. Bitcoin has much larger and broader adoption than it did during the block size wars. Consensus changes, therefore, will be much harder to come by, as they should be.

Still unsure why a chain split occurred, and why BIP110ers will hard fork if they persist? At block 961,632 their nodes began a mandatory (for them) signaling period, rejecting non-BIP110 blocks. AntPool mined a non-BIP110 block 961,632, which was rejected by BIP110 nodes but accepted by all other nodes. Less than an hour later, Roughnecks (BIP110 mining pool) mined a BIP110 block 961,632, which was accepted by BIP110 nodes. From that point forward the two chains were building on different block histories. With nearly 100% of mining hash rate not signaling for BIP110, it didn’t take long for the BIP110 chain to fall behind. And with each new block, any chance of BIP110 outworking the non-BIP110 chain faded away. Two chains building on two transaction histories, one with ample hash rate for its mining difficulty, and one with barely enough hash rate to mine a block every few hours/days at best. Since block 961,632 was also the beginning of a new bitcoin mining difficulty adjustment period, BIP110 miners are stuck facing an impossible task of reaching THEIR next difficulty adjustment (2016 blocks away). So their only options are to abandon the stalled chain, or change their proof of work algorithm to allow their miners to start producing faster blocks. That would result in a hard fork (aka, shitcoin).

It was obvious ahead of time that BIP-110 would fail and fork. Like, really obvious 😂 Even still, I can excuse most of the BIP-110 people who truly believed it was the right thing and went all in on it. It was futile, and even got pretty stupid there, but excusable. What is inexcusable from this point forward is anyone who supports a BIP-110 hard fork. Be careful who you listen to and how they twist words and definitions to get you to agree with them. Bad actors abound.

Consensus in Bitcoin can’t be forced or coerced.

How it started. How it’s going.

“At the current hashrate, it would therefore take roughly 27 YEARS to reach the next difficulty adjustment.” 😂

Turns out it’s not very easy to change Bitcoin.

Without a PoW change (hard fork), how many months/years would it take for the BIP-110 chain to adjust its difficulty down to levels where they can even mine blocks? 😂

For reference 😂 View quoted note →

“I think that’s it. We are forked. I don’t want to call it too early but I think we are definitely two chains from here on out.”

Congratulations, a new shitcoin is born 😂🤦‍♂️