This can be a visitor put up by Jason Hughes, VP of Growth and Engineering at Ocean Mining. Opinions expressed are solely his personal and don’t essentially mirror these of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Journal. The article initially appeared on X.com and has been printed with the permission of the creator.
Let me begin off by saying I’m not professional BIP110, and I’m not anti-BIP110. If it truly succeeds as one thing that features true consensus inside the community and finally ends up being enforced by a majority of the community… cool. In that case, then we’ll go along with it as a result of the community has spoken and accepted it, and all nodes, together with non-BIP110 nodes, will likely be pulled alongside for the experience. Sadly for proponents of the proposal, that merely isn’t presently the case by any measurable metric, nor does it seem to have a trajectory suggesting that may change, both.
There’s been a variety of deceptive details about this entire factor, particularly within the context of mining. A couple of fast key bullet factors to briefly counter some hyperbole from proponents: BIP110 is NOT inevitable. It CAN fail. BIP110 can and can trigger a sequence break up/fork in a minority hashrate scenario. BIP110 is NOT with out threat to miners selecting to undertake it. Miners not supporting BIP110 aren’t abruptly mining “invalid” blocks simply because a proposal that isn’t but adopted merely exists. You’re not a nasty individual or evil merely since you don’t like or assist BIP110. (The truth that I really feel the necessity to level out that final half is definitely type of unhappy…)
I used to be going to jot down a protracted put up to assist maintain miners knowledgeable about issues they should stay conscious of as this all performs out… earlier than realizing I already did so months in the past, as a doc I authored that I had hoped might be put out as a miner training piece at OCEAN. Sadly, it by no means received printed. So I went forward and up to date it, and nicely, right here it’s.
Once more, bear in mind this was written months in the past, supposed to be as agnostic as doable in an effort to make it acceptable as a company put up. That effort failed, so I’m posting it as a private doc at present as a substitute. As a miner making necessary selections about your operations, you want to concentrate on all of this with out the sugarcoating and, frankly, outright deceptive info coming from among the BIP110 proponents. You should be vigilant and resolve what’s best for you.
Whereas there may be definitely some deceptive info from the opposition as nicely, nothing I’ve seen is almost as egregious because the extraordinarily untimely claims of victory and accompanying hyperbole pushed by the BIP110 aspect. Summarizing my doc a bit, my private suggestion to miners is that this: Sign if you happen to assist BIP110. Don’t sign if you happen to don’t assist BIP110 or don’t care. Both manner, monitor the community on/round/earlier than block 961632.
When you proceed to see non-signaling blocks from main swimming pools, you could be fairly sure they’re not going to abruptly resolve later to throw away hundreds of thousands of {dollars}’ value of income to backtrack and sign for BIP110. In the event that they do, by some probability, begin to sign for BIP110, you must monitor that and think about switching as required to remain on the heaviest chain. The important thing level is that, realistically, just one aspect can win. It’s both BIP110 succeeds, and miners not on the BIP110 aspect fail, or BIP110 fails, and miners on the non-BIP110 aspect succeed.
Transferring on, let’s dive right into a small fraction of my rationale.
QUICK FACT: Between 7 and 15% of Bitcoin Nodes are signaling assist for BIP110.
Relying on which centralized crawler you take a look at… no option to know for certain [how many BIP110 nodes are signaling support]. My private non-public crawler places this quantity a lot decrease, however that’s a dialogue for one more day. Suffice it to say, I feel it’s logical and proper to say that even 15% shouldn’t be a majority.
“However Jason! UASF received Segwit activated with fewer nodes!”
Yep, as a result of many miners, retailers, customers, and so forth., all truly needed Segwit. There was super financial and group weight behind it. With out rehashing that entire factor, as loads of sources on the subject from earlier than BIP110 are value a learn, suffice it to say that BIP110 and Segwit activations aren’t fairly comparable, as many have already identified. Segwit, for instance, went into its UASF territory with round 1/third of the community’s hashrate already signaling assist. With that type of backing, the UASF to assist push the MASF over the tipping level made a variety of sense. It doesn’t make sense right here for BIP110.
QUICK FACT: 0.6% of blocks over the previous 60 days have signaled assist for BIP110.
[0.6% is a] fairly stark distinction to even Segwit’s low baseline assist. Sure, I do know it’s elevated barely prior to now couple of weeks, however no new entrants. Simply extra clearly rented hashrate from one of many similar small proponents.
One thing to bear in mind is that mining BIP110 signaling blocks by way of DATUM on OCEAN carries nearly no threat to the miner up till the fork level at block 961632. The price is negligible, as you’re successfully assured to recoup rental prices, and so forth.
It’s superior that the power to take action exists, and I wouldn’t have it some other manner… however simply one thing to bear in mind when weighing signaling from such blocks within the grand scheme of issues from a risk-reward, money-on-the-table perspective.
“However Jason! Miners haven’t any incentive to sign till the final minute!”
I additionally see no proof to recommend that this might be the case. Subjectively, I disagree with the premise, because it’s not in a mining pool’s finest curiosity to destabilize the community in such a manner. A part of the explanation for early signaling and lock-in intervals is to assist coordinate upgrades in a clean trend. Ready till the final minute negates that profit solely. I see no compelling rationale or upside to doing so.
Persevering with on this, as a part of my private node monitoring setup, I particularly monitor nodes recognized to belong to numerous entities, equivalent to different mining swimming pools, exchanges, massive lightning nodes, retailers, and so forth. A supermajority of that are monitored with specific permission and affirmation/coordination.
QUICK FACT: All main mining swimming pools I monitor are presently working some variant of Bitcoin Core v30 or v31 (besides OCEAN).
Increasing on that, most [mining pools] have up to date their nodes for the reason that proliferation of BIP110’s launch, even for the reason that launch of Knots 29.3. Moreover, it’s recognized that many mining swimming pools run modified variations of their node software program to facilitate varied necessities of their particular infrastructure. Such adjustments would have to be ported to a BIP110-compatible shopper, examined, evaluated, and deployed forward of time. I presently see no proof that that is the case presently.
So far as I can inform, the swimming pools are conscious however ignoring.
“However Jason! Miners don’t decide consensus! Nodes do! In any other case, they’ll simply cancel halvings!”
This is likely one of the funniest and most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard from the pro-BIP110 crowd. Evaluating a consensus change that may be unilaterally enforced upon the community by miners and accepted by 100% of current nodes (a delicate fork), with a tough fork which no current node will settle for… is disingenuous at finest. T
ightening guidelines (like BIP110): Gentle fork, could be enforced by miners in the event that they select to take action. Loosening guidelines (like canceling a halving): Laborious fork, cannot be enforced by miners with out successfully 100% buy-in from the whole community… which isn’t more likely to occur. Evaluating the 2 is, bluntly, simply silly.
“However Jason! When you don’t improve to the most recent consensus guidelines, you’re insecure! You’ll lose funds! You’ll mine invalid blocks! You’ll [insert additional hyperbole here]!”
This is able to be true of a consensus change that has, nicely, consensus. Whereas BIP110 has made a valiant effort to achieve that consensus, it has but to have any measurable majority at what’s now arguably the eleventh hour. Not in nodes, not in hashrate, not within the social layers (consensus.well being has a cool visible there the place you’ll discover me within the center).
If by some means BIP110 features 51%+ of the community hashrate on/earlier than block 961632… then, alright. It’s enforced, since as a delicate fork a majority of miners can unilaterally implement it within the absence of a totally adopted URSF (successfully a misnomer, as this might type of be a tough fork).
“However Jason! It will probably’t acquire consensus by already having consensus! You need to give it an opportunity!”
Firstly… no I don’t, regardless that I’ve. Second, it’s a rushed proposal that by no means had the time to even attempt to acquire actual consensus. It’s been 7 months for the reason that launch of the primary BIP110 shopper. There’s ~3 weeks to go earlier than “obligatory” signaling begins as of now (much less by the point you learn this). 90% of the time out there has handed with no change in total sentiment from any related gamers. If it hasn’t gained enough adoption prior to now 7 months, it’s unlikely to take action within the subsequent 3 weeks.
“However Jason! CSAM! CSAM! Pedophiles! CSAM!”
I’ll be the primary to say, even I personally overstated the danger right here early on when Core proposed its OP_RETURN change. I personally anticipated one thing notably egregious to hit the chain virtually instantly, and to the perfect of my information, that’s not but occurred. May it nonetheless occur? Yeah, I suppose.
However contemplating from a technical perspective, byte-for-byte the identical contiguous arbitrary information can provably find yourself saved within the present chain or the BIP-110 chain with out a lot challenge… this specific argument for BIP-110 falls fairly flat to me at this level.
Do I would like CSAM within the chain? In fact not. Am I a pedophile if I don’t assist BIP110? Additionally not.
Concluding Ideas
I might proceed to go on and on and on, however I’ll cease right here. I’ve wasted sufficient time on this. I’m certain I’ve performed loads to harass either side of the BIP110 debate at this level, as I don’t undertake both stance. I’m certain I’ll catch flak from all angles merely for daring to talk my thoughts on it.
General, I largely suppose it was foolish to strategy addressing an actual drawback (the OP_RETURN default change in Bitcoin Core) with the utmost anti-spam manifesto based mostly delicate fork proposal… which provably can not cease spam, arbitrary information, and so forth. 🤦♂️ (Sure, I do know, proponents will declare it’s not about spam… and also will make semantic arguments that it does cease information as nicely… neither of which seems to be appropriate.)
I’ll shut with the concession that I might be unsuitable. I’m not Nostradamus, and I can’t precisely predict the end result with 100% certainty. I can solely go by what the info tells me, and so I give BIP110’s success lower than a 5% probability of really succeeding… and I think about that beneficiant. You’ll be able to take my opinions on this nevertheless you want, however I extremely suggest you don’t low cost the precise information factors, stay vigilant, and do what’s finest for you and your mining income. Don’t be gaslit by both aspect of the controversy, and make your individual selections.
Right here’s a hyperlink to the identical doc linked above for ease of entry.
