Re: a soft fork, I have posted a question on Matthew Kratter's videos: if we only have 20% of node runners switching to knots why do you think we have sufficient consensus to force the miners to mine the soft fork blocks?
https://fountain.fm/episode/WOslYaeXHkGPni8BznUK
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzp2zlqylc5unn2p8n4k9y2mt870nv5hl2s2j6e5rup8ewu65205hxv9azaq
That’s a good question. I don’t think it requires a majority of notes, but I do think it requires a large consensus. Maybe larger than it has now?
I don't know what the percentage is. But it seems to me that if 80% of nodes will accept non-BIP444 blocks then why would miners care about the 20% of nodes that reject those blocks?
Because it’s asymmetrical.
You should read about the UASF during the block size war. The network complied with the UASF with 15% of the nodes signaling for it.
You are going to argue for the spam chain if a major chain split happens? Good luck explaining why it’s good for Bitcoin to publish CSAM to the public shareholders of foundry and Mara.
Ironically, the centralization and corporate structure of major mining pools today make the soft fork easier to implement.
Wow. That's quite a leap. I have not argued for the spam chain. I run Knots. I think that a soft fork is probably a good idea.
But I still don't see how only 20% of us can force miners to mine blocks that follow BIP444 if 80% of the nodes will accept non-BIP444 blocks
The UASF during the block size wars is a little more complex than the fact that few nodes signaled support. It was supported by exchanges and waller providers. And that amount of support is what forced the miners to capitulate.
Do we have that level of support for this soft fork?
