Will BIP 110 be activated?

[BitGoba]

I see that on the Bitcoin Lightning prediction market Predyx, the probability is currently 14%.
https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-bip-110-activate-and-be-enforced-on-bitcoin-by-sept-1-2026-1770282509?ref=14da3a39873d6012
More than 6,000 traders have participated, with a trading volume of over 200 million sats.

What do you think?

[Greg Tonoski]

Yes, the BIP-110 has already been adopted by Bitcoiners and so will be activated in August 2026. The update of software on a Bitcoin node is highly recommended (https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/releases). Uninstall Core™ cause it became obsolete and vulnerable.

I advise against gambling.

[Antidote47k]

Uninstall Core™ cause it became obsolete and vulnerable.

I think that’s a stronger conclusion than the current situation supports.

Whether someone runs Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knots, or another compatible implementation is ultimately their choice, but calling Bitcoin Core “obsolete” or “vulnerable” goes well beyond simply supporting BIP-110.

A proposal, even one that has supporters, doesn’t automatically become the network’s consensus. Activation requires broad adoption across the ecosystem, and until that happens I don’t think it’s accurate to present Bitcoin Core as objectively obsolete. People should evaluate the technical arguments and choose the implementation whose consensus rules they intend to follow.

[BitGoba]

. Activation requires broad adoption across the ecosystem,

I think everything depends on the users who run nodes. Miners, exchanges, and other entities are ultimately irrelevant. If the majority of users activate BIP 110, everyone else will simply have to follow.

If they do not follow, the network will split.Then the market will decide. In my opinion, and based on my understanding, the monetary premium will always flow toward the form of money that performs the functions of money more effectively.

[goldkingcoiner]

I see that on the Bitcoin Lightning prediction market Predyx, the probability is currently 14%.
https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-bip-110-activate-and-be-enforced-on-bitcoin-by-sept-1-2026-1770282509?ref=14da3a39873d6012
More than 6,000 traders have participated, with a trading volume of over 200 million sats.

What do you think?

Most Bitcoiners are against Bip 110 and it will not gain any traction. I am not going to be participating in this folly and even the currently biggest Bitcoin influencer/holder Saylor, has made his opinion clear: https://x.com/saylor/status/2074887855868915781

I would say the probability is far lower than the 14% you mentioned. And there is no point in adopting it, really.

The only adopters I see on this forum are the shill accounts who go around trying their best to shill it, as if they were paid to do it. Or maybe it is a single person with multiple accounts.

Uninstall Core™ cause it became obsolete and vulnerable.

I think that’s a stronger conclusion than the current situation supports.

Whether someone runs Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knots, or another compatible implementation is ultimately their choice, but calling Bitcoin Core “obsolete” or “vulnerable” goes well beyond simply supporting BIP-110.

A proposal, even one that has supporters, doesn’t automatically become the network’s consensus. Activation requires broad adoption across the ecosystem, and until that happens I don’t think it’s accurate to present Bitcoin Core as objectively obsolete. People should evaluate the technical arguments and choose the implementation whose consensus rules they intend to follow.

I fully agree with this statement.

[athanred]

Will BIP 110 be activated?

Some people will activate it, others will simply ignore it. Any node runner can always activate new rules unconditionally, but then, some miners are needed to support that change, otherwise, that node runner will have to mine it by itself.

I advise against gambling.

Activating things unconditionally, without reaching 55%, for example with 1% or 2% hashrate support, is not gambling? Miners on a minority chain will basically gamble their coins, by praying, that they will reach 100 confirmations. It can take weeks with that hashrate.

Whether someone runs Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knots, or another compatible implementation is ultimately their choice

Exactly. When the chain will fork, you will have a choice: use BIP-110 chain, with 1% or 2% hashrate, or non-BIP-110 chain, with the rest of the hashrate.

The clock is ticking. Any user can choose any side, your coins, your rules: https://jlopp.github.io/knotzi-death-march/

[pooya87]

Exactly. When the chain will fork, you will have a choice: use BIP-110 chain, with 1% or 2% hashrate, or non-BIP-110 chain, with the rest of the hashrate.

Last I checked BIP-110 was using BIP-9 for signaling and 55% for its threshold which means it cannot activate with anything lower like 1%-2% of the hashrate/blocks signalling.

P.S. They should have chosen 51% to clarify that this is as malicious as a 51% attack on the network!

[gmaxwell]

Exactly. When the chain will fork, you will have a choice: use BIP-110 chain, with 1% or 2% hashrate, or non-BIP-110 chain, with the rest of the hashrate.

Last I checked BIP-110 was using BIP-9 for signaling and 55% for its threshold which means it cannot activate with anything lower like 1%-2% of the hashrate/blocks signalling.
P.S. They should have chosen 51% to clarify that this is as malicious as a 51% attack on the network!

In addition to what you expect BIP-110 has an additional rule to "activate" even with no signaling hashrate:  At height 965664 part of their news consensus rules become active: The 110 afflicted software will force every block it accepts to "vote" for BIP-110.

Mental image: downtrodden Ukranians in a polling booth in occupied Ukraine 'voting' for reunification with Russia with a Kalashnikov barrel gouged into their temple.  Of course the 'vote' is nothing but pure pretext, they could have just as well had the full ruleset activate at that point, but the showing they have the power to force others to endorse them against their will is the point.

Or at least that's the mental image they were probably going for, but considering the catastrophic adoption failure and widespread opposition the reality is more like a delusional drug addict trying to sexually assault you using a rubber halloween prop knife, screaming "Your lips say no, but your eye say yes".  Not really much of a direct threat but you still want to get far away lest they soil you when they inevitably lose control of their bowels.

Given that, it would have made no difference if their activation threshold had been 51% or 100%-- except when they first announced it they at least wanted to put on a show that they expected it would be voluntarily adopted rather than imposed.

[BitGoba]

I am not that technically competent, so I do not understand much of the technical side.I am more qualified to discuss the economic aspects from the perspective of the Austrian School of Economics.

My basicl understanding is that Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer monetary system digital cash.

Each peer decides which software to run. It is actually somewhat similar to certain monetary systems we have seen in the past, where every member of the community tracked and verified transactions.Miners merely produce the money, because sound money must be difficult and costly to produce.That is like stone money from the island of Yap in Micronesia.

If members of the community are pushed out because they can no longer verify transactions themselves, and Bitcoin becomes like Eth a dumping ground for all kinds of junk, tokens, NFTs, and similar frauds then ordinary people will no longer be able to act as peers and participate directly in the monetary system.That monetary system will eventually die. If only a few tribal chiefs are able to make decisions and verify transactions, then we are simply returning to central banking.

The market chooses money based on its monetary properties, and durability, alongside scarcity, is one of the most important qualities when the market decides what to monetize.And to ensure that, Bitcoin must remain decentralized.Everyone should be able to run their own node and participate as a peer in the monetary network. It must remain easy and inexpensive to do so,

If Bitcoin splits into two chains, we will have one chain that remains true to the principles of sound money and strives to become better, more decentralized money, and another chain that resembles Ethereum a storage layer for junk that increasingly moves toward centralization.

Rest assured that the chain striving to become better, more decentralized money will ultimately prevail, and the monetary premium will accumulate there.

[athanred]

it cannot activate with anything lower like 1%-2% of the hashrate/blocks signalling

This is what people normally do. But Knots decided to create a "mandatory activation", which means, that their client will start rejecting non-signalling blocks, even if the signalling side will have 0% hashrate. After block 961,632, all BIP-110 clients will simply split, if they will be in a minority.

At height 965664 part of their news consensus rules become active

They will start enforcing mandatory signalling since block 961,632. To reach block 965,664, they will need 4,032 more blocks. Which would normally take a month, but with 1% hashrate, it would take years instead, if you assume that miners won't give up earlier.

Each peer decides which software to run.

Exactly. Anyone can fork today, just because that user "feels like it". But then, that user would need to mine that chain by himself.

Miners merely produce the money

Exactly. If miners are not on your side, then your chain will halt, and you will need to find a different miners, or mine it by yourself.

If only a few tribal chiefs are able to make decisions and verify transactions, then we are simply returning to central banking.

Anyone can be a miner, it is not signet, where you need someone's approval.

and another chain that resembles Ethereum a storage layer for junk that increasingly moves toward centralization

If you are so sure, that BIP-110 will succeed, then why don't you sell your non-BIP-110 coins for BIP-110 ones? So far, no BIP-110 proponent put any coins on the table, so they probably don't have any, or don't really believe in BIP-110 being successful.

[gmaxwell]

At height 965664 part of their news consensus rules become active

They will start enforcing mandatory signalling since block 961,632. To reach block 965,664, they will need 4,032 more blocks. Which would normally take a month, but with 1% hashrate, it would take years instead, if you assume that miners won't give up earlier.

Thanks for the correction, I made the error of going to look at their specification-- but since it's so misleading about this behavior it managed to be misleading about the height it happens at.

I am not that technically competent, so I do not understand much of the technical side.I am more qualified to discuss the economic aspects from the perspective of the Austrian School of Economics. [...] Rest assured that the chain striving to become better, more decentralized money will ultimately prevail, and the monetary premium will accumulate there.

I am somewhat concerned that I addressed your Austrian-school oriented perspective in some detail in another thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5588056.msg66926583#msg66926583  and instead of continuing the discussion you seem to have abandoned it and just reiterated the arguments elsewhere.

I do not mean to offend, but I think this creates an appearance that your participation is not a sincere attempt at discussion and improved mutual understanding but is instead a thinly disguised astroturf campaign.  I responded to you in good faith with a mind open to understanding your position and learning from you.  It would be reasonable of you to extend the same courtesy to me.

If members of the community are pushed out because they can no longer verify transactions themselves,

This is not possible by virtue of Bitcoin's construction:  There are hard limits on the resources required to run a Bitcoin node and data embedding junk does not increase it.  In fact, because transactions with embedded data are much less resource intensive to verify than ordinary transactions they speed up processing somewhat.  But generally the resource usage of Bitcoin is more or less the same regardless of them.  If there is an issue of participants being pushed out then the issue is with those limits, and not an issue of insufficient human judgement tampering with transaction processing.

Bitcoin must remain decentralized.Everyone should be able to run their own node and participate as a peer in the monetary network. It must remain easy and inexpensive to do so,

Which is why the design of the system guarantees it will and does so without any central planners deciding what transactions are "good" and which aren't-- Bitcoin has learned from the failings of past fiat systems and their control mechenisms which are inevitably abused regardless of how good their original intents.

If Bitcoin splits into two chains, we will have one chain that remains true to the principles of sound money and strives to become better, more decentralized money,

And as my above-linked post explains, 110 deeply damages the *monetary* properties of the chain that it is on while failing to meaningfully impede any non-monetary usage.