pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin 27 Jan 2023 \ parent \ on: Drivechain and the Side Effects of Bitcoin's Blocksize War bitcoin
Conjecture, but let's roll with it for the sake of argument, because it is a possible scenario to consider.
This seems like a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario to me: miners hit users in their pocketbooks, but users can also hit the miners back. Sure miners can mess with drivechain users but if they do that, they risk destroying confidence in the whole drivechain concept, which will cost them revenues not just on the chain they are DoSing but also on all other drivechains as users flee those chains scared that they might be DoSed next. And if mainchain users hear about bitcoin miners attacking a drivechain, they might begin to worry if the mainchain is next on the chopping block, causing an attrition of mainchain users as well. Sounds like a lot of risk to these attacking miners for... what gains exactly?
Having trouble parsing this part, could you rephrase or clarify? Will point out specific parts that don't make sense to me:
what chain are you referring to? what exactly do you mean by "enable"?
What exactly do you mean by "the economic majority is in the interest of the miners"? How exactly does the "feedback loop" you're referring to work?
Remember when LND broke? Twice? Some people just want to see things break.
The chain I'm reffering to is the forked chain. Remember this scenario is about miner power vs user power to push a consensus change.
The economic majority. The people who are buying bitcoin (which will make it more valuable) will dump coins from the obviously broken chain which is now its own token and technically can't be called bitcoin anymore. This drives hash power.
Enable as in to allow or empower someone to do something. Especially something they couldn't do without your help
reply