Imho, if #Bip110 fails, there will be a hard fork to the original rule-set. And maybe that’s a good thing. #Bitcoin will go underground again a bit more for a while, used as intended.

Thanks. I’ve had someone share that with me. I don’t agree with the framing at all and I find the argument disingenuous.

Same. I’d sell everything and would disconnect my node. Not going to support free data storage and the possibility of illicit trash being stored on BTC. I went all in on bitcoin because it was decentralized, and secure… if BIP110 fails then so does my thesis of it as money. Not going to happen though. Rdts is growing very fast and scammers are getting scared. The loud noise from Core is just more evidence that they are losing control and it’s decentralizing at the node client level.

Please help me understand why you and @Bitcoin Mechanic are so optimistic about #bip110 succeeding. If the majority of miners and nodes just ignore it, as the current numbers seem to indicate, how could that lead to successful activation? Do you expect the the numbers to pick up drastically as we approach the deadline?

Because miners have nothing to lose by activating it and much to lose if they try to ignore it. It’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma type situation. Plus they can lose up to 13% fee revenue from users rejecting their blocks while earning about 0.1% extra revenue from mining spam. If they ignore BIP-110 in August, it will be a clear signal that they’re acting maliciously rather than rationally from pure economic perspective.

Regarding the "nothing to lose" part: wouldn't they be wasting resources mining only BIP110 compliant blocks and ignoring invalid ones, when the majority of miners will mine the BIP110-invalid blocks, and form a longer chain, as validated by the majority of nodes?

As I said, it’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma. If say 10% of the global hash pivots to BIP-110 tomorrow, there’s a 99% chance the rest will pivot immediately after. Currently there’s no penalty for doing this which is why only the ideological miners signal at this point. This will change in early August and we have a proven case study from SegWit.

I'm still missing *why* they would act that way, but it seems like @Matthew Kratter just posted a video to explain it. Maybe it'll help me understand.

Maybe this will help you understand View quoted note →

Interesting. That certainly suggests that a soft fork *can* succeed with even less than current support levels. Does that mean you also expect a similar last minute shift to occur for #BIP110? I guess so, since you mentioned there's no down side to miners to signal. The picture is starting to come together. Just need to tie off a few more loose ends. You mentioned that miners can lose up to 13% fee revenue. Is that due to the 13% of RDTS nodes that won't submit transactions to non-signalling miners? Or is it something else? And if that's the case, wouldn't that be a temporary situation, because those transactions will eventually be routed through other non-BIP110 nodes?