pull down to refresh
769 sats \ 2 replies \ @inverselarp 5 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: What's the End Game? bitcoin
100% this. I am sw dev so i am technical. I am Bitcoin user for about 10y yet i never took the time to get deep into Bitcoin codebase.
To me goals of DCs make sense because those are general good sw design practices (layering, isolating the risk, extensibility). I am very open to arguments against yet i have not seen any presented in a form that would make sense to me. Unknown unknowns in not an argument for me. I was hoping for good write up from Peter Todd (i am so sucker for this guy) so i can finally make my decission.
I feel like most of pro-DC crowd is exactly like this so someone like OP (which i am also big fan of) taking time to write good summary could actually help to resolve this situatuon.
Peter Todd is such a valuable voice in the space. Concerning drivechains, if you look at his last comment on SN you might get an idea on his stance, but I would also appreciate his input here. If a personal bounty would be required for his valuable time and effort, I'd be happy to help fund it.
reply
"Approach NACK: given that drivechains has fundamental flaws unrelated to the exact implementation, there's no reason to distract Bitcoin Core development with this pull-req, even in draft form. What's holding Drivechains back is the idea itself, not the code.
You haven't even bothered to write or link a high-level BIP-style overview of this take on the idea. Writing a bunch of detailed code is a waste of time."
And some fanatics below are impertinent enough to scream: "You need to see a psychiatrist" - while he is talking about tail emission or demurrage as solution to other threat for Bitcoin, i.e. so painfully obvious lack of free market in post-subsidy era.
reply