Let me unpack what this actually means for Bitcoin (not trying to prove anything to anyone, just share results of my personal “do not trust verify” of the
@GrassFedBitcoin claims).
1. Any minority with hash power ~10-20% and minority of nodes (by count, economic value) of <1% may activate a soft fork, causing a chain split and putting the majority funds into a double-spend risk for weeks/month, stopping main chain from efficient operations.
2. This is not how SegWit was activated and was not known before. It is not “just a UASF”.
3. Even if you do not see how pt 1 is possible, it is possible (game-theoretically proven, see my tweets over pas week and discussions with
@giacomozucco) and IS a strategy officially used by BIP-110 gang which they proud of discovering, claiming this is a “distributed authoritarianism” and it is good for Bitcoin.
4. Unlike them I see this as a bad thing and not an authoritarianism, but rather a form of destructive nihilism.
5. In pt 5 “possible” doesn’t mean “it will certainly happen”. Yet still just a fact of its theoretical possibility is already a problem: the system with such feature/bug is vulnerable to the whole range of new types of attacks, so even with BIP-110 abandoned, the damage is already done and there will be more followers to this strategy.
6. This vulnerability is specific to PoW consensus with public ledger (“blockchain”), where miners and users see and verify transactions of the entire world. “ZK” do not protect from them. The only protection is a PoW consensus _without_ blockchain - like I proposed few years ago (Prime, for which our team is building a proof of concept).