pull down to refresh
3302 sats \ 9 replies \ @bergealex4 29 Jan 2023 freebie \ on: Answering Objections to Drivechain bitcoin
the option to not validate is not a feature because the alternative to validating is to outsource the cost by pointing hash power towards pools or entities who can afford to do so.
this outsourceable cost is unlike any cost miners have to deal with and incentivize consolidation of smaller hashing power and block creation capabilities to an oligopoly.
There is a second alternative: any miner can ignore drivechain entirely and just mine blocks the way they currently do. They will still make money off the drivechain without even paying attention to it, because if miners ignore a drivechain, its users have to pay bitcoin fees to commit their drivechain's blocks to bitcoin's blockchain inside normal, fee-paying bitcoin transactions.
reply
this is not a real alternative because miners follow profit incentives first and foremost.
reply
The miners I talk to do not seem to follow profit incentives with radical efficiency. They do not all mine RSK, even though it's profitable, they do not all move to regions with the cheapest energy, even though that means they are overpaying, they do not all have a side hustle, even though it would increase their revenues. In short, they do not act as if every possible profitable action is mandatory. The ones I talk to act like they have a smorgasbord of potentially profitable choices and they pick and choose among them, trying some and neglecting others. Mining a drivechain seems like it would be just another potentially profitable option among many.
reply
They do not all mine RSK, even though it's profitable
It's the other way around, they do not all mine RSK because it's simply not that profitable at all.
Based on latest available data I could find, MM generated $32k/month for eligible miners. That is not even marginal that is a rounding error.
The pools who support it started doing so as a misguided marketing ploy to try to attract more hashrate and just can't be bothered to turn it off. I wouldn't be surprised if they were offered RSK shit tokens on top of that to make it worth their while.
they do not all move to regions with the cheapest energy, even though that means they are overpaying, they do not all have a side hustle, even though it would increase their revenues
Again, this is not remotely similar. They don't have the option of outsourcing the associated costs otherwise they would. If you told them they could flip a switch and pay the same energy rates as the cheapest miners do, they would.
reply
RSK miners were not offered any other token other than rBTC AFAIK.
If miners net revenue is 10% of gross revenue, then 32k USD/month (RSK fees) is like mining 2.5 Bitcoin blocks for a reward of 320k for free.
Not bad.
Also, MEV is not accounted in that supposed 32k/month.
Finally, Bitcoin miners also merge mine RSK because they think it adds value to Bitcoin long term.
reply
Great to see you here, you should do an AMA about rootstock here on stacker news. @k00b let's get that set up!
reply
what is the current revenue?
reply
Hey Sergio, if you're ever interested in hosting an AMA on Stacker News about RSK, feel free to DM us on Twitter to set up a time https://twitter.com/stacker_news
reply
reply