Plagiarism: copy paste
User:
athanredCopy:
People will not store their wealth in something that is insecure, centralized, perishable, abundant, indivisible, or non-fungible.
Will people store their wealth in a chain, which cannot produce one block per 10 minutes, but it produces one or two blocks per day?
If the BIP 110 chain performs the functions of money better, more people will choose to hold it and store their wealth in it.
The whole space, which would be gained by rejecting spammy transactions, would be reduced by the speed of the chain. If you would have 100x bigger block size, but 100x bigger delay between blocks, then the average number of confirmed transactions per second can stay the same. Which means, that if 99% transactions are just data pushes, and you reject them, then having payment-only chain will be as fast, as it was, just because of not enough miners supporting it.
Bitcoin is more about economics than technology.
If Proof of Work wouldn't matter at all, then Bitcoin wouldn't exist in its current form. You can always ignore Proof of Work, and switch to a different security model. But then, you can reach for example signet, which is fully centralized, and
is currently traded for 22 satoshis per coin.
If BIP-110 is about economics, more than about technology, then why BIP-110 proponents don't want to trade their BIP-110 coins for non-BIP-110 ones? If they are so sure about their victory, they could easily gain a lot of coins from such trades. But for some reason, they don't want to do that. Do you know why?
They call it "gambling", and by not swapping such coins, they are actively preventing people from learning, how much BIP-110 coins are worth, when compared to non-BIP-110 ones, so we simply don't know, and people can only guess, which side will win.
Original Post:
If you have studied the idea of Bitcoin deeply, then it should be clear that users ultimately decide which software they run and, therefore, what Bitcoin is. Miners, developers, exchanges, and other intermediaries are secondary.
If the majority of users choose to run BIP 11 0 and miners refuse to follow them, the network will split and two competing versions of Bitcoin will emerge. This will undoubtedly create an identity crisis, because both sides will claim to be the real Bitcoin. But that is not the most important question.
The most important question is where will the monetary premium ultimately end up?
In the long run, the monetary premium will flow toward the chain that performs the functions of money more effectivel
The miners’ chain may initially have a much higher hash rate and therefore be more secure, but the user BIP 110 chain may perform the functions of money more effectively.In the long run, I believe the BIP 110 chain could capture the monetary premium. Miners would then eventually be forced to return to that chain because mining follows economic value and profitability.
That is also why I do not think there will actually be hard fork. Miners will probably activate BIP 110 from the beginning because they understand that their competing chain would gradually lose its monetary premium.
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/07/13/Ucfzol.png
