OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
Super Testnet15d ago
I think I found an unexpected problem with the most liquid BIP110 prediction market. It defines the "Yes" condition based on a mix of timestamp ("11:59:59 PM") and blockheight ("the BIP-110 activation point"). But since those are not always in sync on bitcoin, there's a chance that we simply haven't reached that blockheight yet when we reach the timestamp when the measurement is supposed to happen. In that case, the Yes condition would obtain unexpectedly: if we are only at block 965660 at the timestamp, instead of 965664, then -- at the time of measurement -- there won't be any "blocks that violate BIP-110 constraints" from BIP-110's activation height forward...but only because we haven't reached that blockheight yet. So a person who thinks BIP110 won't activate might find it reasonable to bet Yes anyway, because even if BIP110 never gets enforced, you can still win if blocks just get slower than we currently expect them to. Link to the market: https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-bip-110-activate-and-… Click "Show More" under "Description" to see what I mean.
💬 8 replies

Replies (8)

Akashi Hyogo15d ago
Can they update it now? Or is this market now doomed?
0000 sats
Super Testnet15d ago
I don't know. I suspect the guy who run Predyx *can* update it but it might upset people. Perhaps there has been an unexpected amount of Yes betters because other people spotted this "bug" in the resolution logic before me. If the rules get updated to something they *would have* bet No on, that seems like a potentially upsetting penalty for those users: they will lose probably lose their money, but only because the resolution logic changed. The Predyx guy *could* offer all Yes betters a refund, but then he'll probably have to offer "everyone" a refund, and that might bankrupt him. Any option he goes for could easily cause confidence in his market to collapse.
0000 sats
Akashi Hyogo15d ago
But based on "No" condition, it would be "No" if blocks are slow: "This market resolves to “No” if, at 11:59:59 PM PT on September 1, 2026 (06:59:59 UTC on September 2, 2026), the Bitcoin chain with the greatest cumulative proof-of-work: Includes one or more blocks that violate BIP-110 rules.”
0000 sats
Super Testnet15d ago
I did the math, and if hashrate stays at it is now, we should be at about blockheight 965,400 when we reach the snapshot timestamp. That is before BIP110's activation height of 965,664, which suggests that -- if you're a gambling man -- a Yes bet is a decent option right now even if you don't think BIP110 will activate or be enforced.
0000 sats
ManyKeys15d ago
Does this imply a rigged system to have the community believe everyone is going for yes?
0000 sats
Super Testnet15d ago
I am currently trying not to attribute it to malice. It could easily be an innocent mistake by whoever wrote the market resolution logic.
0000 sats
Tauri15d ago
Prediction markets are shitcoins, but this seems to be the norm for bitcoin these days. *sigh*
0000 sats
Super Testnet15d ago
If we aren't at the activation height yet then there "can't" be a block that violates BIP110 rules, because one of the rules is that the rules only change after blockheight 965,664. Before that blockheight, BIP110's rules are the same as Bitcoin's rules. Well, except for the miner signaling rule, which BIP110 nodes are supposed to start enforcing much earlier. But the website specifies that that doesn't count: "No consideration is given to...Miner intent [or] signaling behavior"
0000 sats