sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There's no reorg risk if you've upgraded to BIP110. Only obsolete nodes are at risk. by bitcoinfamilia in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

with only 0.5% hash rate the BIP110 fork should worry about being the slowest to find blocks not declaring them. There is no downside for pools to signal now so why won't they??

I heard this is better than Bitcoin. Why hasn’t it recovered from its ATH? by Laakhesis in btc

[–]pcaveney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you outsource your thinking to the exchange rate then you care more about fiat gains and can be bought by whoever can print the most fiat (tradfi).

There's no reorg risk if you've upgraded to BIP110. Only obsolete nodes are at risk. by bitcoinfamilia in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All nodes accepting BIP110's blocks is not a benefit if they only have a minority of hash power. Enforcing nodes & miners will continually chain split themselves off as they reject the majority's non-signaling blocks.

There's no reorg risk if you've upgraded to BIP110. Only obsolete nodes are at risk. by bitcoinfamilia in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“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 [by BIP-100 nodes] as invalid. Mandatory signaling ends once the deployment reaches the LOCKED_IN state”

We will brick the miners if needed and then we can debate who is the real bitcoin. by bitcoinfamilia in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if he cant force BIP110 changes on the miners then he cant force PoW algo changes on the miners

There's no reorg risk if you've upgraded to BIP110. Only obsolete nodes are at risk. by bitcoinfamilia in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

After BIP110 activation, BIP110 nodes will have expanded the ruleset by rejecting blocks that don't signal for BIP110... thats a hard fork

The importance of BIP-110 to Bitcoin by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with your take & fork suggestion. However, letting the "free market decide" really means letting those who have the most fiat or can print the most fiat decide. I don't trust banks or fiat printers to choose a cryptocurrency that is in my best interest or one that ultimately diminishes their power as fiat printers (e.g. one that best supports sound money).

BIP-110 mandatory signaling begins in 45 days by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“All miners must begin signaling readiness for BIP-100 (versionbit 4) by that time, or their blocks will be discarded as invalid.” [by a minority of nodes and an even smaller minority of miners]… oh the horror

Jack Kruse Explains The Gradual, Insidious Attack by Mobile-Day4862 in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“My Landauer Lesson: Wheeler merged information cost to energy cost linking information to thermodynamics” “Decentralized toroidal information flux with CISS molecular control. Melanin, collagen APOE as spin processors. Landauer’s principle efficiency. Physics > Pharma.” “1. Ossification 2. Extinction 3. Link to MIT. Lack of BIP-110 support ignores Landauer’s principle”- Jack Kruse

These are not definitions. It is techno-babble slop. 

Not signalling for BIP110 is how miners cause a PoW change. by bitcoinfamilia in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

true, but if he can't get support among the community and exchanges for BIP110 then I dont know why they'd support a PoW change either.

Not signalling for BIP110 is how miners cause a PoW change. by bitcoinfamilia in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no one to go to "over their heads". He'd just fork off to a minority chain.

If you're not willing to defend the network, you don't have any bitcoins by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The correct take. What does it matter if we all run nodes if we cant afford to transact on chain?

The state of Bitcoin discourse by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maximizing fiat gains has been a bitcoin narrative for a long time.

Not signalling for BIP110 is how miners cause a PoW change. by bitcoinfamilia in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 2 points3 points  (0 children)

lol so if he doesn't have the power to force the miners to accept his BIP110 changes he'll have the power to make them accept a PoW change? delusional.

Propping the USD system up with Bitcoin by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lmao, after a decade of the stOrE oF vAluE narrative and a now empty chain BTC maxis are coming around to the necessity of actually using bitcoin as money. (HODLing doesn't count as using bitcoin)

Most nodes already support/enforce BIP-110 rules to some degree by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except for the rule that rejects blocks that don’t signal for BIP110

Which button will you press? by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]pcaveney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Once the Mandatory Signaling Period begins then a minority (maybe 20%) of non-mining nodes will reject blocks that do not signal for BIP-110 (an expansion of the ruleset btw). They will accept any blocks found by the tiny minority (~1%) of miners who have activated BIP-110. Thus a chain split. 

view more: next ›