pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @llamabyte 15 Dec \ parent \ on: Paul Sztorc on Activating Drivechains via CUSF (Bitcoin Takeover S15 E68) bitcoin
because you are small minded and easily scared
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