[AMA] I am a proponent of the BIP-110 (a.k.a RDTS) - ask me anything

[BlackHatCoiner]

BCH actually had a lot more hashrate percentage (and a ton more support) then 110.

Not lucky enough to sell fork coins for bitcoin, I guess.

Fallacy (straw man argument). Even if there are some nodes that don't validate all the rules, it doesn't mean that all blocks they don't reject are valid in the Bitcoin P2P network. For example, pre-SegWit nodes may accept (instead of rejecting) invalid blocks.

If majority of hashrate was mining post-SegWit invalid blocks, then the pre-SegWit network would carry the most hashrate. The reason SegWit did not result in a chain split is because it received hashrate majority support, and post-SegWit nodes enforced their rules on the pre-SegWit network. Thank you for confirming that you need hashrate majority or else it is a chain split.

[athanred]

not by the cartel of mining pools or some central committee of hash-providers at their sole discretion

You need some miners on your side. Otherwise, you have to subtract that hashrate from your calculations. If you introduce a change, which is ignored by 99% miners, and you reject their blocks, then your chain will be much slower. And the speed of BIP-110 chain can be easily measured by counting signalling blocks, because after block number 961,632, your client will reject all non-signalling blocks, even if 99% hashrate will keep making them.

You can always change the code, but you cannot force people to mine your chain. If you manage a company, and fire 99% employees, then you have to do their job by yourself.

[PrivacyG]

I assume at least those, who signal for BIP-110, will keep mining it. But of course, it is possible, that all of them will stop, after seeing non-signalling blocks for a few hours.

The Preg army duo, as in Pepe and Greg, will continue to fight really hard against those damn dick butts!  Particularly Greg, considering his urge to always bring sexuality into discussion.  Dick butts will have NO chance on that dead chain against a straight BIP-110 supporter!

[DaveF]

As I have said before still kicking myself for not dumping BCH as soon as the fork happened. Live and learn.

Optimal time was a fair bit after.

Yeah, early 2018 which in my mind was still soon after the fork and in the middle of all the forks coming out.
I really thought that it would stay up there for much longer and go much higher.

Sucks to be me.


As for the gambling I understand your theory of the swap instead of the bet.

But making it a bet allows someone to give the lukecoin people some really good odds in their favor and when they still don't take those bets it just shows them to be the no-coiners that they really are.

40 days till they leave. Who will we poke fun of after that?

-Dave

[Greg Tonoski]

Fallacy (straw man argument). Even if there are some nodes that don't validate all the rules, it doesn't mean that all blocks they don't reject are valid in the Bitcoin P2P network. For example, pre-SegWit nodes may accept (instead of rejecting) invalid blocks.

If majority of hashrate was mining post-SegWit invalid blocks, then the pre-SegWit network would carry the most hashrate. The reason SegWit did not result in a chain split is because it received hashrate majority support, and post-SegWit nodes enforced their rules on the pre-SegWit network. Thank you for confirming that you need hashrate majority or else it is a chain split.

You got it backwards. It's not like "hashrate majority" delivered a verdict of chain-split-not and support for SegWit. It was akin to "hashrate majority" obeyed the verdict delivered by the network (even though hashrate oligarchs had signalled their opposition before).

not by the cartel of mining pools or some central committee of hash-providers at their sole discretion

You need some miners on your side. (...) If you manage a company, and fire 99% employees, then you have to do their job by yourself.

Disagree. Anybody can be a miner in Bitcoin and so you don't need to ask specifically Foundry or Ant Pool or MARA for their permission in order for Bitcoin to thrive (including soft-forks activation). There isn't any privilege designed for an oversized miner in Bitcoin. BTW there is a difficulty adjustment mechanism in Bitcoin so that the network doesn't need to do defectors' job by itself.

[athanred]

BTW there is a difficulty adjustment mechanism in Bitcoin so that the network doesn't need to do defectors' job by itself.

You need to create 2016 blocks with the previous difficulty, to decrease it four times. The less hashrate you have, the longer it would take to adjust. Which is also why we don't have new soft-forks every day, when any developer feels like it.

you don't need to ask specifically Foundry or Ant Pool or MARA for their permission

If you reject their blocks as invalid, then you have to subtract their hashrate from your calculations.

[Greg Tonoski]

BTW there is a difficulty adjustment mechanism in Bitcoin so that the network doesn't need to do defectors' job by itself.

Which [hashpower volatility] is also why we don't have new soft-forks every day, when any developer feels like it.

Incorrect. It is not hashpower volatility that influences soft-forks in Bitcoin and prevents them from taking effect. Also, "developers" don't make soft-forks happen in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is decentralized. Drops in hashrate total amount are neutral.