Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

@CPepetricio @CarlosJackkal Economic significance isn’t about popularity. It’s the weight each node carries. Miners can signal, exchanges influence millions of users. Your bip110 node does nothing besides forking yourself off.

1 0 0 18 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

@mattkratter @hodlonaut I thought everyone will capitulate? What’s wrong with those fence sitters 😂

0 0 0 15 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

@dearemon 所以还是赚了300w？

0 0 0 4 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

@CPepetricio @CarlosJackkal Miners are economically significant nodes, so do exchanges and merchants. Maybe etfs and treasury companies count. You gonna say virtue signaling? They don’t matter as much in a financially driven system.

1 0 0 18 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

@GrassFedBitcoin But crying don’t get you everything 😭

0 0 0 153 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

@HShearsay @CarlosJackkal Support as in 0.5% miner signaling?

0 0 0 19 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

Prediction: bitcoin bottoms right after the failure of BIP 110

0 0 2 21 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

@LukeDashjr What if I come up with 10 random shitty soft forks? Does bitcoin need to anti fork 10 times then? Of course not, all of those will be ignored just like BIP110.

0 0 0 13 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

@stephanlivera Money should be immutable

0 0 0 14 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

3 weeks ago

You won’t support BIP110 if you invest a series amount in bitcoin.

0 0 1 14 0

View Details

Marcus Lin @MarcusLinBTC

5 months ago

Unpopular opinion: #BIP110 will fail. The good news? It will fail so miserably that it won't impact the current BTC chain. Here's why: 1. Immutability. Sound money requires an immutable base layer. BIP-110 introduces a temporary, 1-year consensus change. If we patch the protocol seasonally to fight "spam," the sound money narrative is dead. You cannot build a hundred-year asset on temporary code. 2. Chain Split. Soft forks like SegWit used 95% activation thresholds to enforce convergence. BIP-110’s 55% threshold guarantees a contentious chain split. Leaving 45% of the network on the old rules invites massive reorgs, replay attacks, and shattered social consensus. You are trading network stability for a filter that won't even work. 3. Miner Economics. The block subsidy is eventually going to zero. Every satoshi paid for blockspace funds our future security budget. Asking miners to voluntarily censor paying transactions is simply naive. Hashrate follows profit, not ideology. 4. The UASF Delusion. "UASF worked in 2017!" Context matters. In 2017, miners capitulated to the UASF because the alternative was losing BTC liquidity to the BCH hard fork. In 2026, the choice is the Status Quo vs. a risky, weak fork. Rational miners will default to the Status Quo. 5. The OP_RETURN Reality. Limiting OP_RETURN through consensus is technically illiterate. It pays full fees (no witness discount) and keeps blocks physically smaller (Max 1MB vs 4MB). If spammers are forced to shift to alternatives, the resulting bloat will be far more damaging. 6. Bad Precedent. If #BIP110 succeeds, any entity could spin up arbitrary soft forks to limit other activities, like CoinJoin transactions. They could argue the existing chain is incoherent and push to activate with just 55% of the hash power, assuming the rest will eventually capitulate. If we accept 55% now, why not 49% later to "avoid endless reorgs"? I believe the people supporting #BIP110 have good intentions, but they haven't thought through the implications or accepted the reality that miners are a foundational component of the Bitcoin network.