61 sats \ 16 replies \ @ek 2 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: The Case for a Chain Split bitcoin
I would say I am a drivechain proponent, too, but all the controversy lately humbles me and I need to do more research before contributing to the discussion.
However, I don't want chain splits. I think we don't need drivechains right now. I think there isn't enough demand at the moment because there is no obvious problem that drivechains would solve right now. So when this changes, I think more people will be on board.
I haven't read what Paul Sztorc wrote that everyone thinks he's pressuring devs, but if that's the case, I think that will backfire (as it currently seems). Pressure is not an option imo. People need to see the problem first before they look for a solution.
Now I have given my opinion without much research anyway, lul
the proposal is from 2014.. how is Paul Sztorc pressuring devs?
i think the recent heating up is because of people learning and being more convinced by it..
(btw i also don't have a strong opinion on it)
reply
there isn't enough demand
Bitcoin dominance falling is the single best indicator that there is quite a lot of demand
reply
Broken metric, change my mind
reply
Bitcoin Dominance is up from 41% to 49% YTD.
Huh?
reply
Zoom out.
Dont live in the denial, there are interesting features that are either completely missing or are complicating effective implementations (eg LN).
Those missing primitives are missing not because of Satoshi’s grant plan but because his lack of knowledge, state of the art, missing industry experience. I am 100% sure if Satoshi has second chance to create bitcoin it would look very different.
reply
It's clear you do not know what you are talking about.
A new, anonymous, account manufacturing support for a change to Bitcoin. Even in the face of contradictory evidence. Your interests and your imagination mean nothing to me.
reply
I actually do but ok. Iq80s wont stop this since most of them cant even run their nodes.
reply
That's adorable. Time will tell.
reply
there are interesting features that are either completely missing
A feature being interesting is not a sufficient reason to add it to any program. The feature must contribute to the purpose of the program beyond what the feature costs to implement/maintain. Bitcoin's purpose is very narrow, which is why Satoshi didn't include other interesting features (e.g. a Turing-complete scripting language).
There are plenty of altcoins that provide those interesting features. They work right now and a lot of people are using them.
reply
So you think that having Satoshi had a second chance and equiped with all today’s knowledge he would built Bitcoin as it is now?
reply
He certainly would have made a few changes (i.e. to avoid bugs like the 2011 inflation bug) and he may or may not have made other changes (e.g. smaller blocks).
But his goal of ending monetary inflation would have remained the same. Considering inflation has gotten significantly worse since 2009, Satoshi probably would have been even more adamant that Bitcoin was made to end inflation.
Fortunately, there are plenty of Bitcoiners who have been adamant about that specific goal.
reply
I agree that the core features like fixed supply, pow, high decentralization (aka small rather than large blocks) would stay. Yet lower level features that would enable scaling on other layers are missing (zk, ctv, trustless sidechains, …)
reply
Missing industry experience lmao
reply
In 2008/9 there was not much decentralized digital currency industry to exprience
reply
demand from bitcoiners and afaik, bitcoin dominance can be misleading if you account for stablecoins
reply
WBTC
reply