@h3llcat101 message forward:
We (LNL) have made a public statement regarding the upcomming BIP110 (RDTS) UASF on our web site and Lightning Network Plus. We encourage all other node operators to read the statement, review, comment and advise their own strategy.
---Statement as follows---
Lightning Network Liquidity (LNL) recognizes the game-theoretical, asymmetric risk profile inherent in User-Activated Soft Forks (UASF), specifically the upcoming BIP110 (RDTS) upgrade.
Following our technical assessment, LNL concludes that the BIP110-compliant chain is likely to emerge as the dominant chain post-activation. To minimize network instability and promote a secure transition, LNL has proactively migrated its infrastructure to the BIP110-compatible version of Bitcoin Knots.
During the transitional activation window, LNL will implement rigorous risk-mitigation protocols to protect channel liquidity and prevent financial loss resulting from potential chain divergence.
We remain committed to the security of our peers and the Lightning Network. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our transition plan, please contact us at admin@lightningnetworkliquidity.com.
UPDATE - CLARIFICATION OF INTENT
This statement is not intended to indicate our support or approval (or lack thereof) for BIP110.
The statement is only intended to indicate our understanding that the risk profile is asymetric towards a successful UASF rather than an unccessful one and hence early signaling is benificial to encourage network stability.
UPDATE - ADDITIONAL INFO
We want to elaborate on the justification for our stance which is based purelly on the asymmetric risk profile created by a UASF.
Even with 30% node support, the game theory creates strong pressure toward a successful UASF rather than an unccessful one:
- The Miner’s Risk: Miners need liquid block rewards to cover operational costs. If 30% of the economy rejects their blocks, legacy rewards lose market depth. Miners don't need to support the change; they just need to fear that mining the "old" chain will result in coins the economy won't accept.
- The Incentive to Defect: This creates a "Prisoner’s Dilemma." Miners are incentivized to defect to the UASF chain early—not just to ensure their blocks are maximally accepted, but to capture rewards on a chain that initially has lower hash competition.
As a routing node, we aren't "voting"; we are positioning ourselves where the economic gravity is strongest to protect the liquidity of our beneficiaries.
I think I will close my channels before the transition and wait to see what will happen...
Crazy, shit all confuses me a lot
that's why most probably has been wrote for.
is the logic that if bip110 isnt adopted, then youll be just fine running the bip110 node except maybe your mempool is inaccurate, but if bip110 is adopted and you are running core you could have transactions that arent mined or worse your lightning channels get fucked up?
Would love to see your explanation of how less than 1% of network hashrate and 30% of non-economic nodes equals the UASF is successful. Lay out your game theory because it sounds like bullshit to me.
dementia is strong with this one