BIP-148 definitely did have lobbyists working back channels. Many of those lobbyists and BIP-148 supporters back then, were on my side in 2026 fighting against BIP-110. BIP-148 was fundamentally different to BIP-148 in many ways: 1. The overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin economy and nodes supported SegWit, close to over 95%. While BIP-148 itself never had such strong economic backing, the softfork it activated did. 2. BIP-148 was lucky to succeed. It succeeded in part because its opponents were absolutely desperate for a hardfork blocksize limit increase. They wanted a hardfork and fighting and defeating BIP-148 would not have given them the blocksize limit increase they craved. Also, the large blockers greatly overestimated the power of the smaller blockers by the summer of 2017. In the minds of the large blockers, they didn't have larger blocks not because of their own mistakes, but the manipulative and powerful cunning of the smaller blockers. Therefore, the large blockers were successfully tricked by the smaller blockers into being scared of BIP-148, something the large blockers could have defeated if they knew what they were doing. 3. The blocksize war isn't just about a grassroots user movement fighting the industry for the sake of it. SegWit was actually a good sustainable idea on a technical level. It increased capacity, fixed third party transaction malleability, fixed the quadratic scaling of sighash operations and fixed the problem of UTXOs being too relatively cheap. On the other hand BIP-110 was deeply technically flawed and ineffective at doing what it was claimed it could do. There is no point fighting "big bitcoin" politically with a fundamentally stupid idea. Being technically sound actually matters. 4. The story of the blocksize war is a lot more than BIP-148. It was big industry and big miners that wanted to change Bitcoin by changing the consensus rules. Ordinary users rose up and prevented that change in the rules. That is the victory, keeping the rules the same and not changing them. This time BIP-110 was the side advocating change. End users running nodes fighting big industry players is an important part of Bitcoin. But only when the industry wants to change the rules in a detrimental way, then you fight to keep the rules the same and win. That is what Bitcoin is about, the status quo rules must prevail in the event of a material dispute. You had it all wrong. You were desperate to replicate 2017 for some reason, but the circumstances of a hostile attempt to change Bitcoin's rules never came up, so you just fought a senseless battle instead, which you lost. And in 2017 the small blockers were the economic majority. The majority of traders and investors wanted to invest in the small block chain and sell the large block chain. This includes all kinds of investors, like funds and corporates. And people put their money where their mouth was. This time, that didn't happen at all, no exchanges supported BIP-110 because there was no demand from their clients, the traders and investors. Nobody wants to invest in that coin. Rather than emulating the smaller blockers in the blocksize war, you are actually a pathetic shadow of the Bcashers. Except the Bcashers put their money where their mouth was, you guys didn't. Some of the Bcashers had useful skills for Bitcoin that will be missed, like pushing hard for merchant adoption, while I don't think the BIP-110ers contributed much. Finally, the Bcash vision had a lot more coherence than BIP-110. The idea of banning spam in the consensus rules and then waiting for the next spam scheme, and doing another consensus rule to ban that again and then to keep repeating that, is an incredibly poor strategy. Most Bcashers in 2017 would not have advocated for something as preposterous as that. It's just stupid JPGs. Just grow the fuck up, ignore the stupid JPGs and try to make Bitcoin a better money!

The BIP-110 chain just needs to spend c$409 million on mining to get to the end of the difficulty period and then another c$100 million to get to the point where non-compliant transactions are banned

BIP-110 mandatory miner signalling is expected to start in just under 24 hours (Currently due at around 21:00 UTC on Saturday 8th August 2026), the signalling itself is a contentious softfork & a likely outcome is a chainsplit. Below are some public tools which are available to monitor the situation: Maintained by us, funded by @lclhostresearch This website is designed to monitor Bitcoin chainsplits. The website is connected to many clients, including pretty much every BIP-110 client ever released Maintained by @0xB10C This is a similar website to Fork Monitor, but with better graphics (A live dynamic block diagram is included) Maintained by us, funded by @lclhostresearch This node tracking website includes a BIP-110 activation tracker. The website also contains mempool statistics charts for Bitcoin Core 31.1 and Knots 29.3, such that one can compare respective mempools during the split. One can also track tens of thousands of nodes, including details such as User Agent and at what block height each node is on Maintained by @0xB10C This website can provide information about missing, extra or conflicting transactions compared to block templates. Maintained by @0xB10C This tools provides information about which block header mining pools are building on top of, in real time Markets & Prices In contentious splits like this, one would also typically want to look at markets and trading venues to watch order books and prices. Miners may also want to watch markets to obtain information of the value of each side of the split. However, in terms of markets and prices, the BIP-110 side has an exceptionally low level of economic support, almost near zero. We are not aware of any trading venues that will support trading BIP-110 coin at this point. Nor are there any futures markets we are of. Therefore, from an economic point of view, the BIP-110 side is not likely to have any matrial traction and there are no markets to watch when the fork occurs.

> this whole thing is that this could be a very good reminder to the miners and the big, big dollar companies in Bitcoin who's actually in charge, which ought to be the nodes You just do not get Bitcoin! The whole point of Bitcoin is that nobody is "in charge". In the event of a material disagreement over the consensus rules, the existing rules must prevail. If Bitcoin does not have that property, of robust rules, it is useless, because the powers that be will be able to change Bitcoin

Indeed. Bcashers have a lot in common with BIP-110 supporters: * Both believe in Blockstream conspiracy theories * Both want to "fire Core" * Both say "Coretards" * Both believe we can/should fight spam by relying on miners being "good actors who care", rather than relying on economics and the blocksize limit * Both release and promote clients trying to change the Bitcoin rules, without consensus * Both say we are in a rush/crisis, therefore must deploy a fix ASAP * Both often fail to see a distinction between policy and the consensus rules * Both have an anti-interlectual appeal against a technical elite * Both assert the similar phrases "Bitcoin is an electronic cash system" or "Bitcoin is money", to show they are right. With Bcashers liking the word "cash" and BIP-110s liking the word "money" * Both claim their opponents understand computer science, but not economics or money

@LukeDashjr doesn’t realize that 100% of the blocks need to signal through the mandatory signaling period for BIP-110 to reach the activation height? 😂 Obviously he understands that mechanically, but in his mind it’s somehow still “0% activation” because the non-signaling miners are the ones forking themselves off the network. 🤡

Stop laughing at the left for accurately describing the mechanics of the system. Since 2009, the Bank of England have purchased hundreds of billions of pounds of gilts. At its peak, it owned 34% of the market. The bank said the “reason" for this was to prevent deflation and to provide liquidity in a crisis. This may have been the reason inside of their minds, however a consequence of this policy is that gilt markets were manipulated and that the government was able to spend a huge amount of money it would have otherwise been unable to spend. Whatever narrative the Bank of England or you have about the reason for this policy, it doesn’t matter all that much, anyone can create a narrative. The fact is the government were able to spend so much money because the Bank of England acquired gilts, if the Bank of England didn’t do that, there would have had to be massive spending cuts.

Stop laughing at the left for accurately describing the mechanics of the system. Since 2009, the Bank of England have purchased hundreds of billions of pounds of gilts. At its peak, it owned 34% of the market. The bank said the “reason" for this was to prevent deflation and to provide liquidity in a crisis. This may have been the reason inside of their minds, however a consequence of this policy is that gilt markets were manipulated and that the government was able to spend a huge amount of money it would have otherwise been unable to spend. Whatever narrative the Bank of England or you have about the reason for this policy, it doesn’t matter all that much, anyone can create a narrative. The fact is the government were able to spend so much money because the Bank of England acquired gilts, if the Bank of England didn’t do that, there would have had to be massive spending cuts.

The government bringing the bond market "into line" has been goverment policy for decades, with the extent of the policy getting more and more extreme This policy will continue until continued waves of inflation eventually result in the public losing confidence in the money