Thread - Nostr Hypermedia

> I doubt it would represent a significant loss It sounds like you don't think the loss will be significant but otherwise agree with my premise -- that miners are incentivized to signal for BIP110 *if* they judge that the loss of revenue due to a split outweighs the loss of revenue due to enforcing BIP110. I think BIP110 runners probably represent less fee revenue than the 8% number might suggest on a surface level. But I'm not sure. Definitely thinking about writing a URSF proof of concept to "do my part" in the fight against BIP110. If I make one I might market the effort as an effort to "save miniscript" rather than an effort to "fork the bip110 people off," as I personally align with the BIP110 people in most ways and do not want them to fork off.

↑ Parent

Replies (3)

Aaron van Wirdum yesterday

Yes I agree with your premise. I would also encourage the development of a URSF for that reason, if you (or anyone else) don't consider it a waste of your time and effort.

pedro pedro@nostr.fan yesterday

but you technically would "fork them off" to "save miniscript"? and in what ways do you align and not align with bip 110?

Tauri tauri@mynostr.com yesterday

If you have concerns about OP_IF why don’t you just hash it out with Dathon instead of doing the heavy lifting for the enemy? Seems like a pretty stupid thing to do. If they want to create more chaos in August and fork off eventually, at least give them the opportunity to work on it themselves.

1 replies ↓