BIP-110 Soft Fork Started

[ABCbits]

Yes, I was aware that a softfork only proposed in a minority client would not affect any other implementation. If for example Knots set a threshold of 5% and Ocean magically tripled its mining participation and was able to lock it in, then they would simply enforce rules no other miners would enforce (if they still remain backwards compatible), and thus miss miner income or risk to fork away if they try to enforce the rules on blocks found by other miners.

This BIP treat certain transaction as invalid (rather than non-standard). So backward compatibility should be impossible, since miner and node who support this BIP would treat certain block/TX as invalid and cause chain split.

Having a "minimum threshold" in such a scenario would perhaps make sense.

In practice, splits are likely to be very asymmetrical.  It would be hard to split the world down the middle.  More likely it would be a single country vs the rest of the world, lets say a 1:10 split.  In that case, it would take the minority fork 10 times as long to generate 100 blocks, so about 7 days.  Also it would be super easy for the client to realize it's hearing way too few blocks and something must be wrong.

In general, if you have 10% network support, and you reject the majority chain, then it takes a week to have coinbase transactions with 100 confirmations, which could be moved anywhere else.
--snip--

FWIW, if the minority decide to perform hard fork, they could add EDA (emergency difficulty adjustment) or something similar to attempt solving that issue.

[stwenhao]

emergency difficulty adjustment

Then, it stops being a soft-fork, and can be safely ignored by everyone else. Because then, it is just yet another altcoin.

In general, if developers are tweaking the difficulty as they please, then it is no longer honestly auto-adjusted by some algorithm, but it becomes centrally controlled. In this case, one "emergency" doesn't guarantee, that another "adjustment" wouldn't happen in the future. It is then similar to "second bailout", because if you can control the difficulty, then you can control inflation.

[Wind_FURY]

The title of the thread is misleading. There is no accepted BIP-110.

It's only a couple of strange guys running an alternative client with some invented "softfork proposal", maintained by essentially a single guy.

Knots, the only client which gives users the opportunity to signal for that "softfork", has a ~20%~14% share, still almost unchanged down from 18-19% since the start of the "OP_RETURN wars", and probably manipulated to the upside.

So even if all Knots users signal for the softfork, they would not come even close to activation.

As @gmaxwell wrote, the proposal is immature, would break things, and wouldn't even achieve what it seeks to achieve (BRC-20 would probably simply change to a Runes-ish protocol).

If Luke doesn't re-get his sanity again, then his client thus will fork away in 2027, creating another BCash.

In this "war", I believe it will be a temporary alliance between the Miners, the Economic Majority, and the Core Developers even if the Knots community had 90% of the full nodes. If the chain splits again, which one would the market consider to be "Bitcoin"? The network supported by the Miners, Exchanges/Services, and the Core Developers OR the network with Luke and his filterbois?

It doesn't need an answer.

[d5000]

In this "war", I believe it will be a temporary alliance between the Miners, the Economic Majority, and the Core Developers even if the Knots community had 90% of the full nodes. If the chain splits again, which one would the market consider to be "Bitcoin"? The network supported by the Miners, Exchanges/Services, and the Core Developers OR the network with Luke and his filterbois?

Knots will probably only get the majority if they invest tons of money into VPSes. I would not rule out that, as a lot of the 5000 nodes they're currently running are probably VPS nodes bought temporarily. On Reddit some of them admitted to have spawned lots of nodes just to simulate a "massive" movement.

But currently the Knots nodes number is already falling again. It was at near 5300, now its at 5100. There are now 5% "BWP[1] 110 ready" nodes (i.e. Knots nodes with the latest version). Which is lower than I expected, perhaps they are taking their time with their Knots upgrade.

Important: Even if this "TheBitcoinPortal" website (which seems to be heavily affiliated with the Knotsies, judging by the "Spam crisis" banner and their appropiation of the BIP acronym) tries to tell you that BWP-110 is not Knots-only and Knots is only the "Primary Implementation" - it is the only implementation that supports it. 1216 of the 1216 BWP-110 nodes are Knots. There is not a single patched Core for example ...

Really makes me remember the Blocksize wars, when BCashies tried desperately to call their fork "Bitcoin" ...

Edit: I'm asking myself if BWP-110 and similar "confiscation" proposals could be considered theft. (please discuss in the other thread)


[1] Bitcoin Worsening Proposal or even better: BLukeCash Wrecking Proposal

[Wind_FURY]

In this "war", I believe it will be a temporary alliance between the Miners, the Economic Majority, and the Core Developers even if the Knots community had 90% of the full nodes. If the chain splits again, which one would the market consider to be "Bitcoin"? The network supported by the Miners, Exchanges/Services, and the Core Developers OR the network with Luke and his filterbois?

Knots will probably only get the majority if they invest tons of money into VPSes. I would not rule out that, as a lot of the 5000 nodes they're currently running are probably VPS nodes bought temporarily. On Reddit some of them admitted to have spawned lots of nodes just to simulate a "massive" movement.

But currently the Knots nodes number is already falling again. It was at near 5300, now its at 5100. There are now 5% "BWP[1] 110 ready" nodes (i.e. Knots nodes with the latest version). Which is lower than I expected, perhaps they are taking their time with their Knots upgrade.

Perhaps Luke Dash Jr. is trying to repeat his success that happened with his support behind the UASF/BIP-148. But that was a different time, under a different situation.

Important: Even if this "TheBitcoinPortal" website (which seems to be heavily affiliated with the Knotsies, judging by the "Spam crisis" banner and their appropiation of the BIP acronym) tries to tell you that BWP-110 is not Knots-only and Knots is only the "Primary Implementation" - it is the only implementation that supports it. 1216 of the 1216 BWP-110 nodes are Knots. There is not a single patched Core for example ...

Really makes me remember the Blocksize wars, when BCashies tried desperately to call their fork "Bitcoin" ...

They can call their fork "Bitcoin", and nefarious individuals like franky1 could open a debate that it's "also Bitcoin" like the Australian Dollar is "also a Dollar".

Laughable.

Edit: I'm asking myself if BWP-110 and similar "confiscation" proposals could be considered theft. (please discuss in the other thread)


[1] Bitcoin Worsening Proposal or even better: BLukeCash Wrecking Proposal

   👍

[tiltedIceCream]

I would much rather fork in drivechains than let this proposal through if we're already in talks for a major fork.

[Satofan44]

In this "war", I believe it will be a temporary alliance between the Miners, the Economic Majority, and the Core Developers even if the Knots community had 90% of the full nodes. If the chain splits again, which one would the market consider to be "Bitcoin"? The network supported by the Miners, Exchanges/Services, and the Core Developers OR the network with Luke and his filterbois?

Knots will probably only get the majority if they invest tons of money into VPSes. I would not rule out that, as a lot of the 5000 nodes they're currently running are probably VPS nodes bought temporarily. On Reddit some of them admitted to have spawned lots of nodes just to simulate a "massive" movement.

We've been through this though, it is a meaningless metric in the end. They could run a more sophisticated attack by trying to run nodes long term and then faking a conversion of old Core nodes to Knots, but this would cost several orders of magnitude more than this short one with VPSes. Even in that case, it would not accomplish anything. Only the dumbest node runners could be fooled that Knots has support like this, because this relates to basic Bitcoin adversarial knowledge about sybil nodes and attack vectors.

But currently the Knots nodes number is already falling again. It was at near 5300, now its at 5100.

I would call that variance and not a falling number of nodes.

There are now 5% "BWP[1] 110 ready" nodes (i.e. Knots nodes with the latest version). Which is lower than I expected, perhaps they are taking their time with their Knots upgrade.

Putting aside manipulators, it takes a very high degree of stupidity to support this "BIP".

Really makes me remember the Blocksize wars, when BCashies tried desperately to call their fork "Bitcoin" ...

Edit: I'm asking myself if BWP-110 and similar "confiscation" proposals could be considered theft. (please discuss in the other thread)

It is theft. Whether you take away my property to use it yourself, or you simply prevent my access to it permanently, that is a semantic distinction that is meaningless. We would be better off if adversarial people that are proposing these activities would be arrested and moved out of the way. Someone should invest in a legal case and set a precedent for this, so that we can start moving on from these stupid proposals. Most of these people are sick, criminal or otherwise deranged. I am very sure that luke-jr's CSAM obsession is a projection away from himself, he most recently looks extremely creepy. Anyone who supports his CSAM review committee proposal is just telling us that they want to watch CSAM footage under the pretense of doing "good things". Normal and happy people do not look like he does and don't give me bullshit counter-arguments about stereotyping. I am great at pattern recognition, and a lot can be derived from the face of a person let alone from his words and actions.