YT or most podcast platforms. “Pints with aquinas” is the channel, and just search John Eldridge should pull it up.

Like listening to him. His pints with aquinas episode was very good.

Where can I see the bip110 blocks/mempool? Thanks.

What evidence would distinguish “hashers opposed or were indifferent to RDTS because it lacked economic support” from “hashers wanted RDTS but were trapped by their pools”?

I see you’re point is ultimately about miner centrality more than the op_return thing that sparked the bip110 fork, and that, that is what according to you has revealed that “miners are in control” or rather the mining pools. But do you think the mining pools colluded to make the op _return the first leg in the boiling frogs play? Add in they were the ones that put the pressure on core? You said the miners you know don’t know jack about what’s happening on the network, by that do you mean they if you are listening, aimlessly provide hash to one of the pools that are the ultimate colluders? And are you saying that these miners (and by extension you presumably mean most if not all miners) will forever follow these mining pools towards a scenario of fully capturing bitcoin (what does this look like btw?)? What evidence can you provide for all of this? Because right now I see Bitcoin doing what it always does, I’ve changed my op_return seeing back to 43bytes. I just don’t see the colluding thing, I just see nodes not caring. Personally I believe the 20p nodes running knots was on the high end and was definitely to some extent artificially inflated.

Those 8,346 entries were transactions in two BIP110 minority-fork blocks, not transactions censored by Bitcoin. The count also includes two fork-specific coinbase transactions. I sampled 16 ordinary transactions from those blocks. Fifteen of the exact transactions subsequently confirmed on Bitcoin. For example: * 2c2d…36ab8: BIP110 block 961,632, then Bitcoin block 961,633 * 0fff…3af13: BIP110 block 961,632, then Bitcoin block 961,634 * 0613…b6d1c: BIP110 block 961,633, then Bitcoin block 961,635 * efec…9043: BIP110 block 961,633, then Bitcoin block 961,638 The sixteenth did not confirm because a conflicting transaction spending the same input confirmed instead, which is a double-spend conflict, not censorship. Bitcoin nodes did not reject the Roughnecks transactions. They followed the branch with vastly more accumulated proof of work, making the two Roughnecks blocks stale from Bitcoin’s perspective. Valid, non-conflicting transactions were then mined into subsequent Bitcoin blocks. In fact, the explicit rejection happened in the opposite direction: RDTS nodes deliberately rejected Bitcoin’s non-signalling block 961,632 and followed the low-work BIP110 branch instead. Counting every transaction inside the losing fork’s two blocks as “censored” is simply incorrect.

Ok hard to know apart from knots whether or not all those nodes are actually “pissed”, didn’t care either way, just didn’t bother to upgrade etc, I wouldn’t call it a reliable way to sample community sentiment from. You could also say it “kinda didn’t” in the same breath, kinda being the operative word in both cases. And thinking about it how do we know that’s not exactly what’s panned out between knots, all the pre 30 nodes and then those running 30 onward who adjusted (like me, who at one point had to figure all this out, and the was like but if you can just a set it yourself what’s the problem?) I.e. do we (can we idk) know how many nodes are actually doing this whole 100k op business?

I recall there was a lot of naks (not that deep into it), but if the community was opposed then why did running knots not take off? To answer your question because it’s probably the most secure out of the lot I guess, and since it’s such a minor thing to change (someone running a node should have no problem doing it), to correct at the level of the node?

Why can’t you run core30 and manually adjust your op_return to 43 bytes or whatever it was?

What’s the answer?

My brother, I’m so sorry for your loss. With prayers and love to you and your family.

What’s the answer?