What has been seen can't be unseen!

[solex]

The miners indicating support for BIP100 is just a small message in their coinbase signature, which allows for some free text. Even if this reached 100% it would have no effect.
Jeff should produce a patch soon, especially as he sees that major problems can occur with legitimate tx throughput next year if nothing is done.

disclaimer: I think BIP101 is a better long-term solution, but if the miners won't use it then BIP100 is infinitely better than just leaving the 1MB and "taking the necessary pain" seeing whether Bitcoin can really become a settlement layer with LN and SC doing all the future heavy lifting. (unlikely that this scenario works.)

 

[Beanow]

I think the "BIP100 is better than nothing" attitude is a dangerous one in the political game even if technically it's right. Once in power, the miners will not be happy to give it up for a better BIP. They will have stronger leverage to keep the situation as is. In fact they even have control knobs on the block size to manipulate the debate.

Furthermore it compromises the zero-trust principle of Bitcoin. You place trust in the miners they will pick a sensible block size.

Any node that wishes to trust on protocol and crypto rather than trusting miner choices in my opinion should regard BIP100 signatures as a vow to voilate that principle. And it should regard BIP100 blocks when it is enforced as an invalid block, because the alternative is being complacent as power is being moved into the political spectrum.

 

[Georg Engelmann]

Also removing the 32mb cap.

Someone make a pull request to BIP100 to remove the 32mb cap.

Furthermore it compromises the zero-trust principle of Bitcoin. You place trust in the miners they will pick a sensible block size.

There's no such thing as a 'zero-trust principle' in Bitcoin. You have to have trust that the majority of miners is doing the right thing.

 

[Inca]

Isn't the reality that exchanges and Wallets and most importantly payment processors will simply pause services until the chain that dies becomes valueless?

More likely they will decide themselves well in advance.

Miners may secure the chain, but what you can spend or exchange for fiat is bitcoin, and miners have zero say in this. In fact they will align themselves to mine the chain that is worth most money.

 

[awemany]

There's no such thing as a 'zero-trust principle' in Bitcoin. You have to have trust that the majority of miners is doing the right thing.

This. A hundred times this. Not only the miners, also that 'not the entire world is lying to you about what Bitcoin actually is...'

The 'trustlessness' argument is also used to argue against using UTXO commitments or other perfectly reasonable schemes to increase Bitcoin's scalability on the software side.

There is no trustlessness - you always have some trust root.

 

[Dbox]

I'm thinking about the 3600 bitcoin per day that would get mined on each chain after a fork. It would take a few weeks for the difficulty to drop, if there were a 50/50 split of the mining power between say BIP100 and BIP101.

Or lets imagine it goes 90% to BIP100, because miners love it. and 10% to BIP101. AT the same difficulty, there'd be more BIP100 bitcoin mined over the first week after the split. So there'd be less sell pressure on BIP101 bitcoins, as they're being mined slower until the difficulty changes. With that in mind, I think the price of BIP101 coins will go up in comparison to BIP100 coins assuming a 50/50 split interest from buyers. That initial boost in price may tip the scale, and mean miners will jump over to BIP101 to reap the higher rewards.

With that in mind, I really think it's predominantly down to buyers, not miners, which BIP will ultimately win economically.