LarryRuane #BIP-110

Pre-v2 Catholic, husband, father, #Bitcoin Core contributor coredev programmer, professional volleyball referee

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

My understand is, following a hard fork, a non-upgraded (do-nothing) node will stick with the non-HF chain, even if the HF chain has more work. Following a soft fork, a non-upgraded node follows whichever chain has the most work (in the short term, ie, within the current difficulty adjustment period, that means the longest), even if that changes back and forth over time; the node will keep switching. That's why you want to make sure there's a super-majority of hashrate on the SF side before activating a SF.

Do you understand wipeout? That's an interesting concept. Following a SF with minority hashrate support, both chains will exist, the original side growing faster. But if the SF chain *ever* becomes longer (actually, has more work), even if that happens weeks or months later and only for a moment, the original chain (since the split point) will be obliterated, it will be as if it never existed!

Miners understand this, so they're wary of generating blocks on the original branch; the game theory favors the SF side, and it's self-reinforcing (as some miners move to the SF, others are more incentivized to also move). That's why a SF like bip-110 has a better chance than it might first appear.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@janrothen @John77394613 @_DannyKnowles @GrassFedBitcoin @umbrel "low-value data loses in a fee auction against real transactions"

It's not binary. I'm not saying spam will out-compete and replace ALL financial transactions. I'm saying that spam increases competition for scarce block space, driving up fees.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@janrothen @John77394613 @_DannyKnowles @GrassFedBitcoin @umbrel "Spam doesn't bloat blocks beyond the blocksize limit."

True, but the problem is that spam prices out financial transactions.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@theswansjr "BSV is the most used and adopted blockchain.
That may be true!"

BSV is *not* the most used and adopted, not even close. It's a testnet.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@MarioNawfal There is no such job as "running the country"

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@369bsv Why would BTC developers be doing anything for the ecash fork? They're completely different projects; ecash isn't part of Bitcoin Core.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@TheDesertLynx @River Hard NAK https://t.co/Bxt0dDZdvS

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@ggreenwald Thanks, Glenn!

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@JamesFigorski @ggreenwald Wrong

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@seejackson @ggreenwald Correct, unless it's an online wallet like Coinbase.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@anondeguerre @ggreenwald "the thief can screen cap"

Not possible when using a hardware wallet like Trezor (or many others). When I set up my Trezor, the seed words never appeared on my laptop's screen.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@trylovision @ggreenwald "would require collusion with digital wallet provider"

Depends on the wallet provider. An exchange wallet (like Coinbase), yes. A hardware wallet (like Trezor), no. The hardware wallet maker never learns its customers' private keys.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@visiona71759 @ggreenwald Government can't, at least in the case of bitcoin.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@ggreenwald ALL governments steal from their own people, that's part of the definition of the word government.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@BitcoinMagazine ALL governments steal from their own people, that's part of the definition of the word government.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@ggreenwald Glenn, governments can't steal bitcoin in self-custody (the correct way to hold bitcoin), only bitcoin that people keep on regulated US exchanges (or exchanges with some agreement with US gov). Also, he said "crypto" which may mean non-bitcoin.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

I think the idea is, if this court case is successful, then, even though you still own your coins de facto, you no longer own then de jure. So if you ever move your coins to a regulated US exchange, you could lose them (de facto).

You would still always have the option to never do that (with Satoshi's coins, could never happen), but it sets a precedent. If it happens to your addresses, your choices become more limited. Let's say you have a family emergency and need USD quickly - that would become more difficult. Absolutely horrible.

As least that's how I understand it. (I don't think they'll win but it is a threat!)

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@HODLBAEK10 @GrassFedBitcoin @BTCsessions @CaminaDrummer4 They're not at all synonymous.

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@BSVCasey @theswansjr If most users run Section 8 (SPV) clients, Bitcoin is much more similar to PayPal or Visa than to BTC. The majority of economic users must run fully validating nodes for true decentralization. https://t.co/KNDIr1B65B

[LarryRuane #BIP-110 @LarryRuane]

@subseventweet @BSVAssociation @Antmantime Absolutely, as long as someone is willing to give away storage and network capacity essentially for free!