Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

I understand the idea that 20% voted yay, 0% nay, 80% abstained. I agree this is problematic. But I can name many core node runners who publicly were against bip110 and thought it was a bad idea. So, although there was no URSF, it is safe to say that there was absolutely resistance to bip110 by many nodes. Accepting this pragmatic observation changes almost the entire premise of the arguments @Bitcoin Mechanic presents here. And I say that even while continuously being convinced by him on many fronts. Kudos to him for his ability to convey his ideas and arguments in a very coherent, understandable way. But I believe this particular premise is very important. @Bitcoin Mechanic - just for arguments sake - If for one minute you, for arguments sake, you agreed to the idea that nodes running core AND nodes running non-bip110 knots, were all AGAINST bip110, (granted they were operating in the dark while signalling nodes were operating publicly, granted, leave that out for one second) - pragmatically re-considering from this standpoint the amount of nodes in the voting room voting YAY vs the amount of nodes voting NAY. How would that change your perspective / decision to move on to another project?

↑ Parent

Replies (5)

Hanshan hanshan@hanshan.io 1 week ago

Seems like he was pretty stuck on the idea that URSF is the "proper" governance method for Bitcoin. Nodes should signal and there should be a "vote". Sorry, its law of the jungle and thats not how consensus governance works.

jgbtc jgettbtc@jgett.com 1 week ago

Can't speak for mechanic of course but for me, the lack of URSF signal is more about honesty and complacency: plebs honestly taking a stand instead of complacently deferring to a few big mining pools. Accepting your hypothetical doesn't change my conclusion from all this. If there had been a URSF with 80% support the only thing that changes is having more respect for the pleb node runner community who actually took a stand instead of deferring to mining pools. But I'd still see a split from core as needed and welcome, as I personally am not interested in some Ethereum 2.0 abomination overflowing with inscriptions, ordinals, and whatever other nonsense core has in mind, no matter how many plebs support it. The reality is there was zero real opposition to bip-110 in the form of URSF, and we are left to interpret this the best we can.

1 replies ↓

nicodemus 1 week ago

I don't get the "80% abstained" argument. Wouldn't "nay" votes take the form of sticking with the status quo and doing nothing? Isn't that the path of least resistance? You either signal for 110, or you don't. Or, is the argument all based on sentiment and not actual signaling?

1 replies ↓

Bronek 1 week ago

I also dont understand how it works, if 80% of the network didnt force the fork doesnt this automatically means that they are against it ? Aldo Why mining pools should go along 20% of the network, if they can still have profits from spam and the 80% of nodes will still accept those blocks

JackTheMimic 1 week ago

No. A softfork is consensus valid meaning any new blocks are accepted by status quo nodes. If they rejected those version 4 bit blocks, THAT would be signaling "nay". Usually you would have to run a URSF client or accept the new stricter rules.