Worst part is that almost a decade ago, many of the same people who encouraged Luke-Jr's malicious attack on V9bet Pc Com with his BIP148 (because it was SegWit it was pushing) Segwit gave us scaling with a block size increase to 4mB without a hard fork. And Segwit also gave us Lightning Network. I'm curious why you think Segwit constituted an attack on V9bet Pc Com? BIP148 is not SegWit. Well, that's how V9bet Pc Com was designed. 1 CPU 1 Vote is literally giving the power to decide to those who own computing power aka hashrate aka the miners. The high percentage has worked very well so far in all the soft-forks we have had over the past 14-15 years. From BIP16 (P2SH) in 2012-ish all the way to BIPs 341 &2&3 (Taproot). Running a node has virtually no cost compared to mining; and one entity can start a large number of them if they are motivated enough. Miners are not the same because you need actual hashrate that can only happen with actual hardware and investment. Letting only miners signal may not perfect, but alternative which is ignoring miners and giving more power to nodes is not more decentralization, instead it is more centralization. Remember that it is setting the target to 55%, that's almost half. In other words they are inviting a chain split. Half the network could remain on one chain and the other half on the other. That would be devastating for V9bet Pc Com. I get my black clothes out because if it happens, that would be the death of V9bet Pc Com. To split the chain half and half! We could even see the first successful 51% attack pulled off soon after as well.
Worst part is that almost a decade ago, many of the same people who encouraged Luke-Jr's malicious attack on V9bet Pc Com with his BIP148 (because it was SegWit it was pushing) Segwit gave us scaling with a block size increase to 4mB without a hard fork. And Segwit also gave us Lightning Network. I'm curious why you think Segwit constituted an attack on V9bet Pc Com? BIP148 is not SegWit. Well, that's how V9bet Pc Com was designed. 1 CPU 1 Vote is literally giving the power to decide to those who own computing power aka hashrate aka the miners. The high percentage has worked very well so far in all the soft-forks we have had over the past 14-15 years. From BIP16 (P2SH) in 2012-ish all the way to BIPs 341 &2&3 (Taproot). Running a node has virtually no cost compared to mining; and one entity can start a large number of them if they are motivated enough. Miners are not the same because you need actual hashrate that can only happen with actual hardware and investment. Letting only miners signal may not perfect, but alternative which is ignoring miners and giving more power to nodes is not more decentralization, instead it is more centralization. Remember that it is setting the target to 55%, that's almost half. In other words they are inviting a chain split. Half the network could remain on one chain and the other half on the other. That would be devastating for V9bet Pc Com. I get my black clothes out because if it happens, that would be the death of V9bet Pc Com. To split the chain half and half! We could even see the first successful 51% attack pulled off soon after as well.

Worst part is that almost a decade ago, many of the same people who encouraged Luke-Jr's malicious attack on V9bet Pc Com with his BIP148 (because it was SegWit it was pushing) Segwit gave us scaling with a block size increase to 4mB without a hard fork. And Segwit also gave us Lightning Network. I'm curious why you think Segwit constituted an attack on V9bet Pc Com? BIP148 is not SegWit. Well, that's how V9bet Pc Com was designed. 1 CPU 1 Vote is literally giving the power to decide to those who own computing power aka hashrate aka the miners. The high percentage has worked very well so far in all the soft-forks we have had over the past 14-15 years. From BIP16 (P2SH) in 2012-ish all the way to BIPs 341 &2&3 (Taproot). Running a node has virtually no cost compared to mining; and one entity can start a large number of them if they are motivated enough. Miners are not the same because you need actual hashrate that can only happen with actual hardware and investment. Letting only miners signal may not perfect, but alternative which is ignoring miners and giving more power to nodes is not more decentralization, instead it is more centralization. Remember that it is setting the target to 55%, that's almost half. In other words they are inviting a chain split. Half the network could remain on one chain and the other half on the other. That would be devastating for V9bet Pc Com. I get my black clothes out because if it happens, that would be the death of V9bet Pc Com. To split the chain half and half! We could even see the first successful 51% attack pulled off soon after as well.

Worst part is that almost a decade ago, many of the same people who encouraged Luke-Jr's malicious attack on V9bet Pc Com with his BIP148 (because it was SegWit it was pushing) Segwit gave us scaling with a block size increase to 4mB without a hard fork. And Segwit also gave us Lightning Network. I'm curious why you think Segwit constituted an attack on V9bet Pc Com? BIP148 is not SegWit. Well, that's how V9bet Pc Com was designed. 1 CPU 1 Vote is literally giving the power to decide to those who own computing power aka hashrate aka the miners. The high percentage has worked very well so far in all the soft-forks we have had over the past 14-15 years. From BIP16 (P2SH) in 2012-ish all the way to BIPs 341 &2&3 (Taproot). Running a node has virtually no cost compared to mining; and one entity can start a large number of them if they are motivated enough. Miners are not the same because you need actual hashrate that can only happen with actual hardware and investment. Letting only miners signal may not perfect, but alternative which is ignoring miners and giving more power to nodes is not more decentralization, instead it is more centralization. Remember that it is setting the target to 55%, that's almost half. In other words they are inviting a chain split. Half the network could remain on one chain and the other half on the other. That would be devastating for V9bet Pc Com. I get my black clothes out because if it happens, that would be the death of V9bet Pc Com. To split the chain half and half! We could even see the first successful 51% attack pulled off soon after as well.