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:

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

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).

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:

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

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).

The German translation of The Genesis Book is now available for preorder! Ganz toll.

Genesis | Aprycot Media

In August 2017, users proved that miners can’t block a valuable upgrade. In August 2026, miners will prove that users can’t push through a harmful upgrade.

What's the Plan For a Post-Quantum Soft-Fork: Bitcoin 2026 panel featuring Jonathan Bier, Mike Casey, Christian Papathanasiou and Ian Smith, and moderated by myself.

Bitcoin House Bali

So I’ve been living in Dubai since last summer. Not because I like the city — I don't — but because my girlfriend lived there when we met and she wasn't quite ready to leave yet. Admittedly the tax benefit is nice too. Earlier this week we decided to get out however, at least for a couple of weeks, to see how the situation develops without being in the middle of it. The uncertainty of it all and potential for escalation is just not a comfortable situation to be in. With that said, daily life in Dubai was in fact quite normal still when we left— just a bit more quiet. The Starbucks is open, the sports bar serves cold Guinness, and Domino’s is delivering to your doorstep. There were missile alerts on our phones maybe once a day, and we could sometimes hear the sound of an explosion, mostly from interceptions I believe. But other than that, if you wouldn't watch the news, you may not even know something was going on. I’ve seen reports on reputable international news media suggesting that influencers are required to convey a positive image of Dubai in these times— and are being barred from posting anything negative about what’s going on. I don’t know to what extent that’s true — I wouldn’t put it past the local authorities — but I do know that I am myself not some Dubai propagandist or Emir simp, yet I also got the impression that the UAE government is dealing with the attacks quite well, so far at least. Also on the topic of influencers, I have seen a good amount of schadenfreude on social media etc. with people mocking the "influencer class" that now finds itself in the middle of rocket fire. I get it and part of me even feels the same way. But you know, most people in Dubai aren't influencers. In fact, most people in Dubai are actually guest workers from places like South and Southeast Asia that work in the UAE to send money back to their family. And if shit really would hit the fan, guess who'll actually be most likely to get stuck there without an easy way home? Yeah probably not the influencer class. If things in Dubai do take a turn for the worse from here and we don't return, I won't miss the city personally— but I will feel bad for these millions of people that were just living their lives peacefully until the jihadist regime across the sea decided to drag them into a war none of them had anything to do with, and no one wanted to be part of.

Dear @Luke Dashjr @Luke Dashjr, would you please be so kind as to define by what process network consent should be formally obtained? View quoted note →

For anyone interested, there’s now a Telegram channel to discuss BIP110 URSF specifics:

Telegram

Join group chat on Telegram

(Alternatively there is also still the ##ursf channel on Libera.Chat IRC.)

Luke-jr moving through the Bitcoin space.