pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @llamabyte 15 Dec 2024 outlawed \ parent \ on: Paul Sztorc on Activating Drivechains via CUSF (Bitcoin Takeover S15 E68) bitcoin
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.
You don't think miners are powerful enough?
I don't think a miner activated soft fork is a good idea at all.
You'd known this if you'd studied or paid attention last time around.
reply
Would you be kind to elaborate @JuanGalt? I could do the research but you seem able to articulate it well, plus it might earn you some sats ;)
reply
Well the whole fork drama of 2017 was a miner lead soft fork essentially that was challenged by a user activated soft fork. What that means is that on paper 90% of the hashing power by mining pool supported segwit 2x. And it was opposed by a grassroots and very loud user movement that would block the transmission of any segwit 2x blocks.
Miners had a lot of potential revenue on the table that could be lost within the days in which that would be resolved. Users (holders) on the other hand could sustain such a consensus crisis for weeks. But don't think the solution was easy this was very chaotic and we don't know what would have happened if the mining pools had not folded early.
On the Bitcoin cash front it was a minor-led hard fork. It was the signed by bitmain. and they changed the difficulty algorithm in order to keep the chain alive because they knew they had a minority. But if they believed they had a majority of hashing power they could have basically forked the network and taking the hashing power. It would have been a much different situation.
Without consensus from the user base it could lead to multiple versions of Bitcoin and if the one we like has less hashing power then a lesser version it could be very chaotic. Eventually you might settle on the markets. Exchanges will have to choose which fork has which ticker. And the price would swing wildly.
Finally if the miner lead Hard fork or soft fork won both the ticker and the majority of the hashing power, and hodlers tolerated it. Then it would set a precedent for miners to lead upgrades. This could lead to a whole new development path for Bitcoin one where miners upgraded in whatever direction increase their profitability or perceived profitability. They're economic incentives are historically different than that of hodlers. The assumptions that the market has of bitcoins stability would be significantly changed. We don't know what that roadmap looks like. We do know that it could lead to mev as well, miner extracted value which leads to centralization of pools as seen in other chains.
Basically there is a long list of unknowns and it would probably change a lot of assumptions in bitcoin. Destroying bitcoins lead is probably not off the table.
The good news is I don't think it has any consensus among holders.
reply
Update your rhetoric software. https://bip300cusf.com/cusf.pdf
Putting aside many of the incorrect statements such as "Then it would set a precedent for miners to lead upgrades." Which miners had all along the history of bitcoin (many updates simply don't concern node operators), there being different versons of "Bitcoin" software was always the case and is the case.
This approach is different and by design is not excludable or censorable the way ordinals were.
The block size wars were a giant waste of resources and Bitcoin is more centralized and heading towards centralization more and more:
ASICS, CEX's, compliance, centralization of Core, Centralization of LSP's (which was supposed to scale bitcoin use, they can't btw) much higher adoption of custodied wallets and on ramps.
All could have been avoided with larger or dynamic blocks.
reply
All could have been avoided with larger or dynamic blocks.
Hey bigblocker, what are you doing here in StackerNews? , go build a layer1-based website with BCash and use it, don't bring your non-technical propaganda here.
reply
All could have been avoided with larger or dynamic blocks.
lololol. Yes. And when we run out of transaction space again, what then? Oh right, bigger blocks, of course! Until running a node is so resource intensive that only governments and big corps can run them, like Eth, where >50% of nodes are hosted in one of like two corporate datacenters because of the insane hardware requirements. Bigger blocks along fix literally nothing. Get out of here with that.
I want the protocol to evolve, I welcome change, I don't welcome rehashing the same idiocy all over again, or anybody else who wants to do that.
reply
I think as long as it doesn't affect me (it doesn't, it's opt in) and or is reversible should something undesirable happen (soft forks are reversible) i don't see myself as a pure virgin prisetess dictator protecting other's from economic benefit/risk.
How dare you use the name of a fictional Capitalist but advocate for Bitcoin Communism.
Cusf and Bip 300/1 allow the market to decide and not core (who decide nothing and will gladly watch Bitcoin die because they are captured by the state)
reply
Oh go eat a dick and don't fucking that lecture me.
reply