rich1.0epsql (npub1zh…vs67x)https://nostr.now/npub1zhmsa0fs76dctwag0slvg4j9xqxu9q66dkkzxh7ls9pu4d0f9qkqgvs67xnjumphttps://nostr.nowI honestly don't understand why after BIP110's failure everyone seems to have woken up to what I think is quite an obvious thing: - nodes without hashpower have a lot of power to resist changes - nodes without hashpower are almost powerless when it comes to proposing and enacting changes Mechanic keeps on ranting that miners are employees of the network and they shouldn't be making decisions, yet the small chances BIP110 had relied *entirely* on miners behaving "well" with respect to RDTS nodes and flipping the bit to go along with them, a decision that nothing incentivized them for. 1 CPU == 1 vote doesn't mean 1 node == 1 vote. If BIP110 had 50% of hashpower then the game theory could have played out as two competing chains would have been carrying on for a relatively long time until some non-BIP110 decided to maybe flip the bit in order to consolidate on one chain and avoid a dramatic split. Any other scenario relies on some set of actors behaving well simply because they like some other set of actors. For all its flaws, Bitcoin doesn't work like that and it never did for that matter. Bitcoin is designed to keep working in a world where everyone is trying to fuck everyone else.