pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @chungkingexpress 29 Jan 2023 \ on: Answering Objections to Drivechain bitcoin
Just another idea:
Is there a process or paradigm for analysing the game theory of this and other kinds of changes to Bitcoin?
What I mean is, we are all aligned on Bitcoin at a high level, however as with the block size wars there may be different interpretations of "is this good for Bitcoin?"
An objective lens through which to look at these changes, the arguments for and against, and their impacts would be very valuable, covering things like incentives, decentralisation, scalability, long range attacks, etc.
E.g. What OP presents is a response to common objections to Drivechains, but what are the underlying benefits? Are those benefits only achievable through Drivechain and are they worth making the changes for, what are the incentives here? Will those incentives encourage things that are not good for Bitcoin as a whole long-term?
Is there a process or paradigm for analysing the game theory of this and other kinds of changes to Bitcoin?
Yes, twitter threads :P
Seriously though, forums like stacker news and bitcoin twitter and podcasts are where this stuff typically gets hashed out. Experts in the subject matter are brought on to give their opinions and node operators listen in, sometimes ask questions, and ultimately decide whether or not to install the soft fork software on their nodes. It's how it's been done since the OP_P2SH softfork in the days when everyone hung out on bitcoin talk forums. Now we're spread around further and there are node operators all over the world, so the number of forums is bigger, but it's basically the same process. Bring in experts, ask them questions, make informed decisions. And sometimes sell hats to drum up support for your "side."
reply