@matteopelleg Comparing bip 110 to previous soft forks is kind of silly, as the txns that were "censored" were non standard, had zero economic demand, and would have looked silly (i.e. anyone could spend them).
@phil_geiger@ODELLXYZ I also learned a lot about game theory. If even 1% of hashrate supports a soft fork, the other 99% of miners have to go along with it, or else all 99% of them will mine on stale blocks and waste all their hashpower.
@cryptoquick The core nodes are 99% of hashrate and they build on each other's blocks without the bip 110 flag. Meanwhile the bip 110 nodes all reject the constantly growing growing core chain. How do core nodes capitulate here exactly?
@alpacasw@coinjoined "malicious miners", "fire the miners", "change the PoW algo", etc. These are all phrases luke has used before. So when the soft fork fails, expect a hard fork.
@Bitcoinfinity Citrea didn't need big op_returns, they just went ahead with the more harmful fake utxo addresses without even reaching out to core. So it was really more of a bad incentive that core noticed out in the wild.
@JuergenStrobel@MrHodl I think that's a given. It'll probably get only a few blocks, but I'm curious how few. Anyone mining it will noticeably be wasting hash immediately after the mandatory signalling block. So maybe only 1-2 blocks would be my guess?