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

[BlackHatCoiner]

A chain split is typical for hard-forks (unlike the soft-fork BIP-110). In absence of a hard-fork, there are usually observed so-called chain reorganizations ("re-org").

A chain split is typical for hard forks, correct, but it is also typical for soft forks that do not receive the majority of hashrate on their side. A soft fork invalidates a currently valid rule. If most miners ignore this, and produce blocks that are invalid to post-softfork nodes, those nodes do not experience reorgs, they simply stop following the chain with the most work, and land on a forked chain, hopefully with some hashrate.

Claude agrees that you'll be left with a shitcoin: https://claude.ai/share/20f1502d-d3cc-485d-b5a4-87352cf8154c

[DaveF]

Actually when you think about it more, there probably will not be a chain split. Nobody will mine on 110 so it's going to be the regular chain and a lot of knots / 110 nodes just sitting there stalled.

Which does bring up the philosophical discussion. If someone changes the rules and nobody mines with the new rules and those nodes just sit there doing nothing.....does anyone care?

-Dave

[ertil]

Nobody will mine on 110 so it's going to be the regular chain and a lot of knots / 110 nodes just sitting there stalled.

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.

If someone changes the rules and nobody mines with the new rules and those nodes just sit there doing nothing.....does anyone care?

Well, that's why you need some miners on your chain. If you have not enough, then it is your problem. Which is also a great design choice, because then, whales with a lot of coins have a reason to pick the right chain, or otherwise, they have to use their funds, to rent some hashrate instead.

Most of the blocks in Bitcoin were produced such that they conform with the BIP-110 (besides flipping the bit). Why wouldn't it continue?

Even pro-BIP-110 block explorers can show you, that it is not the case: https://mempool.kilombino.com

[buwaytress]

I haven't verified any of the crap supposedly waiting for people like me to go see them. I just never found any of it fascinating. I'm also too lazy to find out how we all arrived at dick butt pics...

But I do wonder if it was important, OP, for you to say something about yourself that you believe to be natural (straight). Usually the ones who state do so because they are rather... to the contrary of "natural".

[werghb4562]

As a matter of fact, there is all hashrate on the permanent chain with BIP-110 whereas there may be non-rivalry, fugitive and ephemeral hashrate idling on a perishable block-height.

You don't want to trade "non-rivalry, fugitive and ephemeral hashrate idling on a perishable block-height" coins that are easy to double spend for real bitcoin because?

[ABCbits]

Are there questions?

Are you aware that most TX with OP_RETURN output is created by Runes/Runestone protocol? Most of them also have 80 bytes or less arbitrary data on the OP_RETURN?

Any non-signalling block is rejected by all BIP-110 clients (...). Which means, that the chain will split after block 961,632,

Incorrect. A "non-signalling blocks" could either be never produced or produced at any point in time, e.g. in block 961 666.

Have you ever read BIP 110 itself?

Mandatory signaling period: Similar to BIP8, this deployment enforces mandatory signaling during the retarget period immediately before mandatory lock-in (blocks 961632 to 963647; lock-in happens no later than block 963648). During this window, blocks that do not signal bit 4 are rejected as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state.

It clearly state it's possible miner or mining pool create block that doesn't signal BIP 110 on mandatory signaling period, which treated as invalid by BIP 110.

Bitcoin Knots will reject the stronger chain, which will cause the split. It is simply programmed to split, because there is no "failing" condition in the code.

Incorrect. BIP-110 doesn't change the consensus rule about selection of the heaviest ("stronger") chain. There isn't any split caused by the BIP-110.

Related with part of BIP 110 i quoted above, BIP 110 only choose chain that signal BIP 110 starting from mandatory signaling period. If more than 50% miner/mining pool decide not to signal BIP 110, that means BIP 110 would choose "weaker" chain.

[gmaxwell]

Incorrect. All coins will remain fungible. There will not be any BIP-110-specific version of coins created in Bitcoin. The existing holders' coins will not be any different from their future ones after the BIP-110 gets activated via the soft-fork in August 2026.

Nice try, fed.

If the result is that only a 110 bitcoin exists then you'd get the coins and I get nothing.  I, obviously, don't agree that that's going to happen but it's not my business to convince you.  Believe what you want.

Sounds like you should be jumping at the opportunity. Why aren't you?

[DaveF]

Incorrect. All coins will remain fungible. There will not be any BIP-110-specific version of coins created in Bitcoin. The existing holders' coins will not be any different from their future ones after the BIP-110 gets activated via the soft-fork in August 2026.

Nice try, fed.

If the result is that only a 110 bitcoin exists then you'd get the coins and I get nothing.  I, obviously, don't agree that that's going to happen but it's not my business to convince you.  Believe what you want.

Sounds like you should be jumping at the opportunity. Why aren't you?

Dave raises his hand in the back of the classroom saying "pick me, pick me I know why"

Because he has no coins. From post #4 in this thread:

Nobody who has any measurable amount of BTC would ever support 110 or any proposal that could tell them how and where and for what they could spend their BTC on.

Should probably amend that statement to nobody who has coins or nobody who has any mental strength to think things through. But, for the most part, 110 supporters seem to be nocoiners who want to punish the rest of us.

And lets not forget, this last signaling period they had *9* blocks out of the 2016 that signaled for 110. The one before that they had 16. So it's not like they even can show that much support for it.

-Dave  

[Greg Tonoski]

A chain split is typical for hard-forks (unlike the soft-fork BIP-110). In absence of a hard-fork, there are usually observed so-called chain reorganizations ("re-org").

A chain split is typical for hard forks, correct, but it is also typical for soft forks that do not receive the majority of hashrate on their side.

Incorrect. As a matter of fact a soft-fork "receives" all soft-fork's hashrate (not any majority, not any minority). Chain-splits are not typical for soft-forks, obviously (it would have been easy for anybody to show examples as proofs to the contrary).

A soft fork invalidates a currently valid rule.

Correct.

If most miners ignore this, and produce blocks that are invalid to post-softfork nodes, those nodes do not experience reorgs, they simply stop following the chain with the most work, and land on a forked chain, hopefully with some hashrate.

Incorrect. If any reckless or rogue miner produces an invalid block then the block is rejected by nodes and is not appended to the chain. Even if Foundry, Ant Pool, F2Pool and MARA together produced invalid blocks, they would neither derail nodes nor impact the chain with their broadcast of invalid blocks. Node runners would still secure the chain. Nodes would not stop following the chain with the most work and would not be tricked into following an alternate, invalid (corrupted, dishonest, decoy) chain. The same applies all the time, regardless of moments of soft-forks activations.

Nobody will mine on 110 so it's going to be the regular chain and a lot of knots / 110 nodes just sitting there stalled.

Which does bring up the philosophical discussion. If someone changes the rules and nobody mines with the new rules and those nodes just sit there doing nothing.....does anyone care?

Incorrect. There are miners who mine BIP-110 complaint blocks and it will continue. There will not be any "knots / 110 nodes just sitting there stalled." BTW nodes are miners too and produce blocks by themselves (even if not using loads of energy).

I assume at least those, who signal for BIP-110, will keep mining it.

I agree.

But of course, it is possible, that all of them will stop, after seeing non-signalling blocks for a few hours.

I disagree. That would be against their interest. Also, there would be excellent opportunity for enormous profitability of mining if difficulty was drastically adjusted downward. There will entrepreneurs who would rather seize the opportunity than let it slip. Also, node runners are characterized by low time preference so temporary slow down of blocks production don't discourage them.

Most of the blocks in Bitcoin were produced such that they conform with the BIP-110 (besides flipping the bit). Why wouldn't it continue?

Even pro-BIP-110 block explorers can show you, that it is not the case: https://mempool.kilombino.com

The block explorer shows as I said. Maybe you looked at short timeframe. I referred to the whole history of Bitcoin.

But I do wonder if it was important, OP, for you to say something about yourself that you believe to be natural (straight). Usually the ones who state do so because they are rather... to the contrary of "natural".

I thought it may be part of the culture of the forum as some prominent members publicly announced their orientation, e.g. Ava Chow, Wladimir van der Laan (males transitioned to females).

Secondly, I want to emphasize that that the BIP-110 is not ghey.

As a matter of fact, there is all hashrate on the permanent chain with BIP-110 whereas there may be non-rivalry, fugitive and ephemeral hashrate idling on a perishable block-height.

You don't want to trade "non-rivalry, fugitive and ephemeral hashrate idling on a perishable block-height" coins that are easy to double spend for real bitcoin because?

I think it would be fraud of me if I promised to exchange something (bPedo coins) that wouldn't exist. The BIP-110 does not create any chain-split.

Besides, I know for a fact that there are trolls paid for promoting gambling platforms, in particular Predyx and Polymarket.

Are there questions?

Are you aware that most TX with OP_RETURN output is created by Runes/Runestone protocol? Most of them also have 80 bytes or less arbitrary data on the OP_RETURN?

Yes, I am aware of that. I wrote "datacarrier=0" in the bitcoin.conf file on my node in order to reject such transactions. I advise everybody to do the same.

Have you ever read BIP 110 itself?

Yes, I read BIP-110 specification many times. I have been explaining it to Bitcoiners for months. Also, I shared my review comments with the author (Dathon Ohm) and others.

It clearly state it's possible miner or mining pool create block that doesn't signal BIP 110 on mandatory signaling period, which treated as invalid by BIP 110.

Correct.

Related with part of BIP 110 i quoted above, BIP 110 only choose chain that signal BIP 110 starting from mandatory signaling period. If more than 50% miner/mining pool decide not to signal BIP 110, that means BIP 110 would choose "weaker" chain.

To the contrary. "If more than 50% miner/mining pool decide not to signal BIP 110, that means" that the chain is stronger because it ousts (defends against) dishonest miners/nodes and more importantly reinforces decentralization.

I deliberately skip the spook Gregory Maxwell's post. I'm disinterested in his handlers' USD. Their fiat dollars are worthless to me.

110 supporters seem to be nocoiners who want to punish the rest of us.

I keep my secret key to sats in Bitcoin so I'm not a nocoiner. Also, I have been using Bitcoin for payments. I deny the suspicion that I want to punish you.

[ertil]

Also, there would be excellent opportunity for enormous profitability of mining if difficulty was drastically adjusted downward.

You need 2016 blocks to decrease the difficulty four times. Which means, that if you have 1% hashrate, then it wouldn't take two weeks. It would take 200 weeks in this case instead. Also, in the meanwhile, the rest 99% of miners will keep mining a stronger chain, which you would reject. And all old clients will follow that too. Note that non-BIP-110 nodes will simply follow the chain with the most Proof of Work, while BIP-110 clients will strictly reject that chain, just because they will consider currently valid blocks as invalid, after block 961,632.

Also, node runners are characterized by low time preference so temporary slow down of blocks production don't discourage them.

Of course, seeing one or two blocks per day, instead of a block every 10 minutes, will not discourage anyone. Yes, sure. The speed of the chain is proportional to the split of the hashrate. Because BIP-110 side is going to reject non-BIP-110 blocks, so you have to subtract that hashrate.

The block explorer shows as I said.

The block explorer clearly shows, that miners, which do not signal for BIP-110, keep including transactions, which are incompatible with BIP-110. These are marked with radioactive sign. You don't have many blocks without it.

[DaveF]

I keep my secret key to sats in Bitcoin so I'm not a nocoiner. Also, I have been using Bitcoin for payments. I deny the suspicion that I want to punish you.

No you don't have any BTC. We all know that.

Nobody who supports 110 has ever stepped up and taken any bet from anyone about 110 making it as the dominant chain.

So it stands to reason you either don't have any BTC. Or you are all alt accounts of luke who we all know does not believe in gambling and has tried to block gambling TXs on the blockchain. Either way, you can put up or shut up.

Does not matter at all anyway since in 41 days and a bunch of hours from this post, knots nodes will stop accepting what most of the network nodes accept as valid blocks.

As a side note the for singling period for Taproot the last few periods were 40.8%, 83.8% and 98.3% (activated)
For Segwit it was 41%, 45%, 71%, 100% (activated)

Do you really think that as of now with sub 1% support now there is anyway you can even get to the point where anyone even thinks 110 matters?

-Dave


 

[Greg Tonoski]

Also, there would be excellent opportunity for enormous profitability of mining if difficulty was drastically adjusted downward.

You need 2016 blocks to decrease the difficulty four times. Which means, that if you have 1% hashrate, then it wouldn't take two weeks.

Why do you assume that hashrate could suddenly drop to 1%? I think it is unrealistic.

Also, in the meanwhile, the rest 99% of miners will keep mining a stronger chain,

What makes you think that a hypothetical centralized and perishable chain(tip)/network, controlled by a few oligarchs of the dictatorial regime b'Core, would have been stronger than a P2P network made of independent nodes (node runners)?

Note that non-BIP-110 nodes will simply follow the chain with the most Proof of Work, while BIP-110 clients will strictly reject that chain, just because they will consider currently valid blocks as invalid, after block 961,632.

Disagree. Both classes of nodes would follow the same chain with the most Proof-of-Work.

In case of an attack, integrity of not-yet-updated nodes is endangered temporarily. Rogue miners (attackers) could push a knock-off chain-tip to vulnerable nodes even though a block wouldn't pass full validation. Eventually, those nodes would automatically revert to the correct chaintip as it gets heavier (accumulates the most PoW). Such an attack is prohibitively expensive thus unsustainable and improbable. Also it is not specific to soft-forks activations and could be conducted at any moment.

The block explorer shows as I said.

The block explorer clearly shows, that miners, which do not signal for BIP-110, keep including transactions, which are incompatible with BIP-110. These are marked with radioactive sign. You don't have many blocks without it.

Again, throughout the Bitcoin history there were hardly any blocks (and transactions by the same token) violating BIP-110. It only changed in 2023. There is more information at https://wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com/.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Incorrect. If any reckless or rogue miner produces an invalid block then the block is rejected by nodes and is not appended to the chain. Even if Foundry, Ant Pool, F2Pool and MARA together produced invalid blocks, they would neither derail nodes nor impact the chain with their broadcast of invalid blocks. Node runners would still secure the chain.

Some nodes will not run the BIP110 rules. Why do you assume the blocks will be invalid for those nodes? They will only be invalid for the BIP110 nodes.

If you're a real person, and really believe the bullshit you write, then I challenge you to take a bet with me. If there will only be one chain after the BIP110 activation, with BIP110 rules, you win. If either there is one chain without BIP110 rules, or two or more chains, after BIP110 activation, I win.

Surely it is free money for you, if you're certain there will be no chain split, as "node runners secure the chain".

[DaveF]

Some Most nodes will do not run the BIP110 rules.

As of now. 70% +/- of the nodes out there are going to continue to accept blocks that do not signal 110.
So a minority of nodes, most of them believed to be trying to sybil attack the bitcoin network are running knots.

And all the people behind it refuse to take part in any kind of wager. So they either have no BTC, don't really believe what they are positing, or are part of the fringe group of Catholics that luke is a part of that think gambling is a sin.

Here is a nice podcast about luke and how far out there his beliefs are: https://www.coindesk.com/podcasts/coindesk-podcast-network/bitcoin-season-2-inside-the-mind-of-luke-dashjr-bitcoin-s-most-polarizing-developer

If people want to follow someone like that then let them. They will have their minority chain that nobody else wants and then they can follow him like everyone followed BSV off a cliff.

Can't wait till we get to move all their posts to the altcoin section. Going to be hilarious to watch them all loose their minds.

-Dave

[BlackHatCoiner]

Can't wait till we get to move all their posts to the altcoin section. Going to be hilarious to watch them all loose their minds.

I wish them to have some hashrate, honestly. Just 1%, for a couple of months. You all lucky have lived to have BCH and BSV airdropped in your wallets. I can't wait for my turn, to sell all my BIP110 for BTC!

Jokes asides, this will be permanently positive, because we will also no longer have to discuss about spam, just as we no longer discuss about the block size argument. Whenever someone complains about spam, I will just point them over to BIP110-coin!  

[DaveF]

Can't wait till we get to move all their posts to the altcoin section. Going to be hilarious to watch them all loose their minds.

I wish them to have some hashrate, honestly. Just 1%, for a couple of months. You all lucky have lived to have BCH and BSV airdropped in your wallets. I can't wait for my turn, to sell all my BIP110 for BTC!

Jokes asides, this will be permanently positive, because we will also no longer have to discuss about spam, just as we no longer discuss about the block size argument. Whenever someone complains about spam, I will just point them over to BIP110-coin!  

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

BTG,BDC,BTK,and the dozens of other forks also were real good for making some money.

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

This time I think it's going to be harder, mostly because did have so much support that people with money were out there to trade it.
Now, no exchanges are even talking about it. No pools (except for Ocean) are mining it. And so on. It's probably going to be DoA.

Could be wrong, 110 might have just enough hash to get a few blocks in the beginning then they will have to fork and do a difficulty drop and an algo change but who knows.

-Dave

[ertil]

Why do you assume that hashrate could suddenly drop to 1%?

Because only something like 1% or 2% of miners are signalling for BIP-110.

Both classes of nodes would follow the same chain with the most Proof-of-Work.

Non-BIP-110 blocks will be rejected by BIP-110 clients.

there were hardly any blocks (and transactions by the same token) violating BIP-110

You need only one non-BIP-110 transaction, to split the chain. Also, the only thing that is needed to fork the chain, is simply not signalling for BIP-110. Then, upgraded Knots nodes will fork at that point. Because they will reject the chain, which won't signal for BIP-110, which is what 99% of miners are producing here and now.

Unupgraded nodes are safe, because they will follow the chain with the most Proof of Work. While upgraded Knots nodes will simply reject all non-signalling blocks, after the block 961,632, when "mandatory" signalling starts. But it is only "mandatory" for some Knots nodes, every other node can just ignore it, and follow the hashrate.

I wish them to have some hashrate, honestly. Just 1%, for a couple of months.

Exactly. Having 1% or 2% hashrate on BIP-110 side will just cause an airdrop for all BTC users, because they will have their coins on both chains. But if BIP-110 chain will have 0% hashrate instead, then it is a worse case, because we would still have these people here, constantly trying to block some BTC transactions on a non-BIP-110 chain.

However, if they will see no blocks for a couple of hours, and then one or two blocks per day, then I don't know, if they will have the courage, to burn a lot of electricity, just to keep their BIP-110 chain alive.

[ABCbits]

It clearly state it's possible miner or mining pool create block that doesn't signal BIP 110 on mandatory signaling period, which treated as invalid by BIP 110.

Correct.

Related with part of BIP 110 i quoted above, BIP 110 only choose chain that signal BIP 110 starting from mandatory signaling period. If more than 50% miner/mining pool decide not to signal BIP 110, that means BIP 110 would choose "weaker" chain.

To the contrary. "If more than 50% miner/mining pool decide not to signal BIP 110, that means" that the chain is stronger because it ousts (defends against) dishonest miners/nodes and more importantly reinforces decentralization.

1. Why do you create fake quote? I'm the one who write those quoted reply, not ertil.



2. You said "correct", but earlier you said it's "Incorrect. A "non-signalling blocks" could either be never produced or produced at any point in time, e.g. in block 961 666.". Why you're not being consistent?
3. When i use word "weaker" or "Stronger", i obviously refer to total hashrate or work.
4. Why do you assume node/miner who don't signal BIP 110 as "dishonest"?

[gmaxwell]

Nobody who supports 110 has ever stepped up and taken any bet from anyone about 110 making it as the dominant chain.

I think it's critical to point out that what I'm suggesting isn't a bet-- it's a trade.  One with some conditional value to be sure, but I think it's important to distinguish it from an abstract wager.

Imagine: I say green team will win, you say purple team will win.  We could bet but if we do it's an interaction based on our self-confident belief about our ability to predict the future and nothing else... In this wager one person will ultimately win at the expense of the loser.  It's zero sum.

In these discussions, I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned a 110 coin is worthless because it undermines the properties that I've always thought made Bitcoin interesting. That I don't want them.  This doesn't say anything about what will happen except through the indirect route that if I think its worthless other people will too.  I'm also saying that I value non-110 bitcoin and want that instead even if a 110 chain exists.  I want non-110 coins even if they were valued less on the market (though I don't expect them to be, obviously).  I would still make this trade if I *knew* the non-110 chain would initially be valued less, and then I'd work to increase its value just as I did in Bitcoin's past.  I'm here for the freedom money and always was, and particularly I'm here because I think freedom money should be made as valuable as it can.

The 110 proponents suggest they have a mirror position-- particularly with their fork that will activate with tiny amounts of hashrate they're saying that they committed to their new restrictions even if it results in a dysfunctional tiny minority chain. The authors of 110 argue that bitcoin is failing, and it still may be failing with 110, but it's certainly failed without it.  They're here for money they can assert their will over and subject their own definition of "purity" against, even if it means restricting it to feel virtuous about fictional threats.  They see Bitcoin's inherent lack of third-party oversight into the transaction content of consenting third parties as a flaw in dire need of improvement.

A proposal to trade 110 for non-110 coins isn't a wager then-- it's an offer for two people to give up something they say is worthless to them to gain something that is extremely valuable to them. It's not about one party winning or losing, in this trade both parties always win if the trade happens.  Both parties get what they want, and their win doesn't come at anyone's expense.  This is the sort of pure utility-maximizing exchange that mostly only lives in the fevered dreams of economists.

Of course, the guaranteed bilateral win only happens if both parties are true and correct about their preferences.

Declining suggests to me the declining party is being entirely insincere about their commitment, either because they don't actually think 110 is better enough that they want it even if they can't impose it on anyone, or because they're a no/few coiner like the author of 110 and are either jaded about Bitcoin or want to weaken it for the benefit of some alternative.

God knows it's a pretty inconvenient fact for a lot of 'smart contract' chains that Bitcoin has smart contracts...

or are part of the fringe group of Catholics that luke is a part of that think gambling is a sin.

An example of why distinguishing a 110 non-110 trade from a wager matters!  It isn't one, except in so far as any investment has risks.

If trading 110 coin for non-110 coin is a sin then owning meaningful amounts of bitcoin at all is one too.

Maybe that explains a few things...

Were it just wagering I suspect the most rational trade for me would be to bet _in favor_ of 110: fair odds would give me approximately infinity 110 coins per bitcoin.  And given that I expect 110 if successful would severely damage the value of Bitcoin (whatever the chain) taking a hedge even against that fringe risk would be rational.  But I actually want the freedom money thing for its freedom, for the potential to use it.  And that matters more to me than maximizing my risk-weighed expected future returns.

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.

[Greg Tonoski]

Incorrect. If any reckless or rogue miner produces an invalid block then the block is rejected by nodes and is not appended to the chain. Even if Foundry, Ant Pool, F2Pool and MARA together produced invalid blocks, they would neither derail nodes nor impact the chain with their broadcast of invalid blocks. Node runners would still secure the chain.

Some nodes will not run the BIP110 rules. Why do you assume the blocks will be invalid for those nodes? They will only be invalid for the BIP110 nodes.

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. Bitcoin Knots v29.3.knots20260508 (https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/releases/) and the reference BIP-110 implementation by Dathon Ohm (https://github.com/dathonohm/bitcoin/releases/) are the only fully validating nodes available. If you want to be sure that a block is valid you need to use them (discard Core because it is obsolescent).

Why do you assume that hashrate could suddenly drop to 1%?

Because only something like 1% or 2% of miners are signalling for BIP-110.

That's why your assumption is false. The BIP-110 (a.k.a. Reduced Data Temporary Soft-fork) is activated by the Bitcoin P2P network participants (in particular node runners) and not by the cartel of mining pools or some central committee of hash-providers at their sole discretion. Bitcoin P2P network has already adopted the BIP-110. SHA-256 hashers are left with the options to either continue operating on the network or point their hash elsewhere, e.g. Bitcoin Cash, their own hard-forked chain and so on. The current level of signalling is irrelevant (and optional).

Both classes of nodes would follow the same chain with the most Proof-of-Work.

Non-BIP-110 blocks will be rejected by BIP-110 clients.

Correct.

You need only one non-BIP-110 transaction, to split the chain.

Incorrect. A non-BIP-110 block (and so an invalid one) with a non-BIP-110 transaction wouldn't cause split of the chain. In actual fact, it could exploit vulnerability of outdated nodes (e.g. Core v30) and trick them into accepting an invalid chain-tip block (unnecessary additional risk of double spending).

Also, the only thing that is needed to fork the chain, is simply not signalling for BIP-110.

Incorrect, again. Invalid blocks don't belong to the Bitcoin P2P network. An invalid block (in violation of the BIP-110) doesn't fork the chain per se. It causes penalty for a node that broadcasts it and may result it disconnecting a rogue/misbehaving node.

Then, upgraded Knots nodes will fork at that point. Because they will reject the chain, which won't signal for BIP-110, which is what 99% of miners are producing here and now.

Incorrect, again. Bitcoin Knots nodes are not programmed to fork off the Bitcoin P2P network. They will reject invalid blocks and at the same time continue the Bitcoin P2P network. BTW there will not be a new chain created by the BIP-110. Also, there will not be a chain rival to BIP-110 created as nobody announced such a plan. Miners will
produce blocks that are compliant to the BIP-110.

But it is only "mandatory" for some Knots nodes, every other node can just ignore it, and follow the hashrate.

Disagree. BIP-110 update is mandatory for all participants of the Bitcoin P2P network, including Knots nodes, Core nodes and so on. If a node doesn't validate a block fully then it is exposed to additional risk. Therefore, the best you can do is to update your node (I recommend the latest Bitcoin Knots version).

Exactly. Having 1% or 2% hashrate on BIP-110 side will just cause an airdrop for all BTC users, because they will have their coins on both chains.

Incorrect. The BIP-110 doesn't cause any airdrop for anybody. It doesn't create another chain.

But if BIP-110 chain will have 0% hashrate instead

False. There isn't any special chain BIP-110 created. (As a side note, a chain has 100% of its hashrate by definition).

some BTC transactions on a non-BIP-110 chain.

Disagree. There will not be "a non-BIP-110 chain" created as nobody announced such a plan.

1. Why do you create fake quote? I'm the one who write those quoted reply, not ertil.

By mistake. Apologies. I have corrected it.

2. You said "correct", but earlier you said it's "Incorrect. A "non-signalling blocks" could either be never produced or produced at any point in time, e.g. in block 961 666.". Why you're not being consistent?

Disagree. I think I was consistent.

3. When i use word "weaker" or "Stronger", i obviously refer to total hashrate or work.

I can't see a question here. I guess my position may be clearer by giving the thesis that a hypothetically heavier (more accumulated work/PoW) chain of BSV doesn't make it Bitcoin, i.e. there may both chains co-exist Bitcoin's less heavy one and BSV's heavier one.

4. Why do you assume node/miner who don't signal BIP 110 as "dishonest"?

Because such a miner wouldn't play by the rules. Miner must not produce invalid blocks. (Also, miner must not conduct 51% attack.)