jongriffeth
Jon

Follower of Christ, Husband, Father, Bitcoiner

Public Key

npub1qf5l3rjzergthwk5cdpas0d5t6q65g2qycexyuxmhtgvpj58mrxst3lfss

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsqy60c3epv359mht2vxs7c8k69aqd2y9qzvvnzwrdm45xqe2ra3ngpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsdfa6ze

Publishing to

public.relaying.io

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1qf5l3rjzergthwk5cdpas0d5t6q65g2qycexyuxmhtgvpj58mrxst3lfss

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-27 22:06:49 UTC

- reply

Please explain to me, in technical specificity, how the network determines and "off the shelf" node from an "economic" one. These are just condescending terms that are meaningless in reality. The difference in the two is the private intention of the user that you will not objectively know. Here is the current reality: Miners and exchanges have ZERO financial incentive to mine blocks containing transactions that 20% of the node network will reject. All indicators so far, point to this large swath of nodes as not being a sybil attack, but in fact are (like myself) pissed off with what has been going on. It is utter fantasy to think miners will take an ideological stance on this - instead of an economic one. Blocks conforming to BIP-110's tighter rule set WILL propagate across the network in a backwards compatible fashion (this is how a soft fork works!) while the reverse is not true. Those in opposition must ACTIVELY reject this via USRF but that is not happening right now. Where is the proposal? They are just moaning about it on X, which I'm glad to say, is also meaningless.