The softfork dynamics worked that way, at least they did in 2017 when segwit activated and the big blockers got defeated. If you had some support and no opposition therefore non colluding miners are incentiviced to obey and avoid their blocks getting rejected by part of the network, which could lead to losing mined blocks, if most miners behave in the safest way for them individually.
That is why Saturday told us they colluded, it is the only logical explanation.
The only way for bip110 to be rejected properly is by URSF run by node runners, which would signal miners they will get their block rejected if they go for the softfork (when the URSF has an edge over the UASF)
That is the way node runners would enforce their control on the network evolution, but supporting or rejecting explicitly.
If you defer to miners and they collude, you are in a network whose rules are controlled by the same that issue the coin, not the users. If that sounds familiar, it is how the Fiat system works in essence.
If you don't believe Saturday litmus test, don't worry, there will be others. But they will not do it in a hurry, unless they are stupid. They will boil the frog slowly. Eventually you will see them pushing for relaxing halvings, tail emissions, etc
/ Jzpx7Gg
npub1fg…azdmt
2026-08-12 20:07:35 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…9qn2
Author Public Key
npub1fgdc5gw7lfa2nvuqx549j56h9h8qhryjx5hq0djta7aqc5m5mtrslazdmtPublished at
2026-08-12 20:07:35 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "fa5704108293ea86354059a31d35f53426475838d106ff6e0aed6ac25fc94a2c",
"pubkey": "4a1b8a21defa7aa9b380352a5953572dce0b8c92352e07b64befba0c5374dac7",
"created_at": 1786565255,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"4a1b8a21defa7aa9b380352a5953572dce0b8c92352e07b64befba0c5374dac7",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"1bd32a386a7be6f688b3dc7c480efc21cd946b43eac14ba4ba7834ac77a23e69",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"f75ac498d3e042b33f097a82bd4fed8e1ffe63be30a14c8b8e6fa8640d90ab2e"
],
[
"p",
"1bd32a386a7be6f688b3dc7c480efc21cd946b43eac14ba4ba7834ac77a23e69"
],
[
"p",
"4a1b8a21defa7aa9b380352a5953572dce0b8c92352e07b64befba0c5374dac7"
],
[
"e",
"e1c05dc7c6963213bd65d791a1f754a72c86c36d2f8a1fd0226f82cfaa9bdb45",
"",
"reply",
"4a1b8a21defa7aa9b380352a5953572dce0b8c92352e07b64befba0c5374dac7"
],
[
"e",
"3acbecadf67cd8a502e4dfd90b6a14844de8ea8792440b41335b43a311c44740",
"",
"root",
"1bd32a386a7be6f688b3dc7c480efc21cd946b43eac14ba4ba7834ac77a23e69"
],
[
"client",
"Primal Android"
]
],
"content": "The softfork dynamics worked that way, at least they did in 2017 when segwit activated and the big blockers got defeated. If you had some support and no opposition therefore non colluding miners are incentiviced to obey and avoid their blocks getting rejected by part of the network, which could lead to losing mined blocks, if most miners behave in the safest way for them individually.\nThat is why Saturday told us they colluded, it is the only logical explanation.\nThe only way for bip110 to be rejected properly is by URSF run by node runners, which would signal miners they will get their block rejected if they go for the softfork (when the URSF has an edge over the UASF)\n\nThat is the way node runners would enforce their control on the network evolution, but supporting or rejecting explicitly.\n\nIf you defer to miners and they collude, you are in a network whose rules are controlled by the same that issue the coin, not the users. If that sounds familiar, it is how the Fiat system works in essence.\n\nIf you don't believe Saturday litmus test, don't worry, there will be others. But they will not do it in a hurry, unless they are stupid. They will boil the frog slowly. Eventually you will see them pushing for relaxing halvings, tail emissions, etc \n\n",
"sig": "c51c1e43c080830adba60d03649efc08b1c646f7298f66b87243d845664db5a87a1617d9a86bd13871bc1cd17bf09fff36ea709c1ff60823286729a3447d04cf"
}