The X algorithm optimizes for outrage.

Not gonna sit through more Kratter plebslob but assuming this is about Mechanic's game theory I'll leave this here.

In a new episode of What Bitcoin Did with , talks about the game theory behind BIP110, which he believes makes it virtually guaranteed to succeed. There was a lot of discussion about these dynamics in anticipation of the Segwit UASF (BIP148) in 2017; I for example wrote this article about it at the time: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/op-ed-heres-why-all-rational-miners-will-activate-segwit-though-bip148 Note however that I at the start of that article laid out the assumptions for this game theory to play out. Arguably none of these assumptions hold up for BIP110. 1) The hash power support for BIP110 is incredibly low (significantly lower than for Segwit), and I don’t believe these miners will continue to mine a minority chain long enough for the difficulty to return to normal. 2) IMO BIP110 is a harmful upgrade, therefore I expect the market to value “110BTC” less than “LegacyBTC”. (This is the important one btw.) 3) BIP110 is more niche than BIP148 was, so a smaller percentage of users and miners will be aware of any game theory to act on even if that was rational. 4) In the unlikely event that a wipe-out of the legacy chain becomes a realistic possibility I would expect users and/or miners who oppose BIP110 to deploy some kind of checkpoint in order to prevent this. TL;DR: BIP110 nodes will probably fork themselves off the network when mandatory signaling starts, and either end up on a dead chain or become a forkcoin (that would likely require further protocol changes to then stay alive).

In a new episode of What Bitcoin Did with , talks about the game theory behind BIP110, which he believes makes it virtually guaranteed to succeed. There was a lot of discussion about these dynamics in anticipation of the Segwit UASF (BIP148) in 2017; I for example wrote this article about it at the time: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/op-ed-heres-why-all-rational-miners-will-activate-segwit-though-bip148 Note however that I at the start of that article laid out the assumptions for this game theory to play out. Arguably none of these assumptions hold up for BIP110. 1) The hash power support for BIP110 is incredibly low (significantly lower than for Segwit), and I don’t believe these miners will continue to mine a minority chain long enough for the difficulty to return to normal. 2) IMO BIP110 is a harmful upgrade, therefore I expect the market to value “BIP110 coin” less than “LegacyBTC”. (This is the important one btw.) 3) BIP110 is more niche than BIP148 was, so a smaller percentage of users and miners will be aware of any game theory to act on even if that was rational. 4) In the unlikely event that a wipe-out of the legacy chain becomes a realistic possibility I would expect users and/or miners who oppose BIP110 to deploy some kind of checkpoint in order to prevent this. TL;DR: BIP110 nodes will probably fork themselves off the network when mandatory signaling starts, and either end up on a dead chain or become a forkcoin (that would likely require further protocol changes to then stay alive).

The German translation of The Genesis Book is now available for preorder! Ganz toll. https://aprycot.media/shop/genesis/