That UASF didn't actually activate though. The miners decided it wasn't worth a chainsplit because of the economic weight of the nodes that had activated.
And 90%? Curious when you'd point to for that; BIP-148 was getting 22% of blocks per signaling period in December and it went up from there.
Miners can absolutely be swayed by nodes. But they're swayed by nodes with more economic weight. Merchant nodes. When it's a bunch of start9's run by people who aren't transacting and most of whom admit they'll not be standing by the fork when it happens, there's no reason the miners would change their course. Nobody's talking about selling their BTC to buy the resultant forked coin, and the chatter about a PoW change to keep the fork alive has been admittedly minimal. 10 exahash (and certainly dropping once the rewards drop off precipitously in market value and no longer pay the cost to rent) leaves that chain taking ~3 years to reach its first difficulty adjustment without one.
Also, if 90% of miners opposed BIP-110, it'd mean BIP-110 had increased its support more than 10 fold at this point.
At the end of the day I don't have any skin in this game. I just see a lot of people being whipped up into a fervor of fear around a problem that is likely blown out of proportion, and worse, around a "solution" to it that isn't. I don't see it likely that you can ever prevent jpgs and other spam entirely in a low fee environment. You can of course lower the blocksize, to limit the fidelity of said jpegs, and to raise the average fees by reducing the supply of blockspace (and perhaps we should -- the raise with Segwit was something of a compromise with the big blockers anyway, and we have more proven out layers now). But rallying around moving data from one place in the block to another and convincing people its an existential issue has been peak silliness.
Cykros
npub1lc…63apw
2026-07-12 10:00:46 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…apky
Author Public Key
npub1lcetwt8hcd9gagdytu4e35ufykxek0elfvx8q3spugmgj9x0ev0q363apwPublished at
2026-07-12 10:00:46 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "337becefff6643ad4c43e4a52f6fd877de884c5c6ec8e28a396db0f5b8167d2e",
"pubkey": "fe32b72cf7c34a8ea1a45f2b98d389258d9b3f3f4b0c704601e2368914cfcb1e",
"created_at": 1783850446,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"14796ed8dad0bc642079ed5352d365ec991fcb652481dbd8aab97b0178a7a1c2",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub/",
"root",
"314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff"
],
[
"p",
"fe32b72cf7c34a8ea1a45f2b98d389258d9b3f3f4b0c704601e2368914cfcb1e",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"ab0451c71a6e1a60fbb7dea598b743c8ce68f01f87c6c4d3777435b8216f8b9b",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"e",
"64c45f0087a1e9bd8a85ae45249dec94ef81c2769151456453532942f12a0462",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff"
]
],
"content": "That UASF didn't actually activate though. The miners decided it wasn't worth a chainsplit because of the economic weight of the nodes that had activated.\n\nAnd 90%? Curious when you'd point to for that; BIP-148 was getting 22% of blocks per signaling period in December and it went up from there.\n\nMiners can absolutely be swayed by nodes. But they're swayed by nodes with more economic weight. Merchant nodes. When it's a bunch of start9's run by people who aren't transacting and most of whom admit they'll not be standing by the fork when it happens, there's no reason the miners would change their course. Nobody's talking about selling their BTC to buy the resultant forked coin, and the chatter about a PoW change to keep the fork alive has been admittedly minimal. 10 exahash (and certainly dropping once the rewards drop off precipitously in market value and no longer pay the cost to rent) leaves that chain taking ~3 years to reach its first difficulty adjustment without one.\n\nAlso, if 90% of miners opposed BIP-110, it'd mean BIP-110 had increased its support more than 10 fold at this point.\n\nAt the end of the day I don't have any skin in this game. I just see a lot of people being whipped up into a fervor of fear around a problem that is likely blown out of proportion, and worse, around a \"solution\" to it that isn't. I don't see it likely that you can ever prevent jpgs and other spam entirely in a low fee environment. You can of course lower the blocksize, to limit the fidelity of said jpegs, and to raise the average fees by reducing the supply of blockspace (and perhaps we should -- the raise with Segwit was something of a compromise with the big blockers anyway, and we have more proven out layers now). But rallying around moving data from one place in the block to another and convincing people its an existential issue has been peak silliness. ",
"sig": "f1b29fc9bd2edaf6933afaf6ccc77de0dcad52c24861e9a8067cf4192f314184249c264ae45037b21887a385319f17607802923d643a6af9f9eed5577b8670f6"
}