The Case for a Chain Split \ stacker news ~bitcoin

6266 sats \ 43 comments \ @jimmysong 2 Sep 2023 bitcoin

The debate surrounding drivechains has been heating up, with proponents employing various tactics to garner support. This divisive issue echoes previous disputes in the Bitcoin community, such as the 2017 block size controversy. As such, we should consider what was then the definitive resolution: a chain split.

A significant portion of the Bitcoin community rejects drivechains, effectively blocking its implementation via a soft fork. Bitcoin's voluntary nature makes it resistant to hostile takeovers, despite claims that miners could force the change. Disagree with that last statement? Then let's put that to the test. We can resolve this posturing and propaganda by forking the code.

Here's how it would work: Code implementing drivechains would be released. Those who support the proposal can run this code. A transaction that goes against drivechain rules but adheres to pre-drivechain rules will trigger a chain split. Those running the drivechain software wouldn't be doing anything, but nodes that aren't can reject the drivechain chain by using the "invalidateblock" command. The result will be two distinct Bitcoins: one with drivechains and one without.

This approach was resolved the conflict we had in August 2017, when Bitcoin Cash split off from Bitcoin. Similarly, proponents and opponents of drivechains can either hold or sell their respective Bitcoins post-split. This would be a real-world test of control and game theory within the network.

I advocate for this split not just for potential profits, but also because it's a peaceful solution. It would let us see in real time how convicted the drivechain people are. Will drivechain miners support it if it means mining at a loss? A chain split would serve as a critical learning opportunity for the community, providing a clear answer to the ongoing debate. Ultimately, this will strengthen Bitcoin by showing the market how hard it is to change its properties.

So bring it on! Fork or shut up.

view all related items

1456 sats \ 0 replies \ @supratic 2 Sep 2023

History repeats itself in cycles... I agree that they should give it a try, until they get burn and fail, miserably.

1096 sats \ 1 reply \ @tomlaies 2 Sep 2023

Wait what? Stuff is getting this serious?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 2 Sep 2023

haha, good reaction, I had a similar one

1018 sats \ 0 replies \ @purpurato 2 Sep 2023

There hasn't been much talk of actual results of these propositions in testnet, or signet or whatever chain to test. The discussion should be around code and its results.

Unfortunately it's all about polarization like what we have already in fiatland: you're pro Ukraine or or a Russian spy, pro vaccine or anti science etc. This is not the way real discussions should take place. There are arguments and in this particular case you should have the meanings to prove them (on testnet). It may not be fully quantitative and single solution outcome, but there must be something tangible for people to decide.

47 sats \ 20 replies \ @supertestnet 2 Sep 2023

As a drivechain enthusiast I support this

The best thing the bcashers ever did was make software that does what they want and then start using it

If you're like me and you like drivechain, let's do that too!

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @supratic 2 Sep 2023

I think you might be missing the point of this post

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @iguano 2 Sep 2023

The worst thing that bcashers did was to fork , with patience and better strategy they could have a bigger block Bitcoin. Now they have nothing.

61 sats \ 16 replies \ @ek 2 Sep 2023

I would say I am a drivechain proponent, too, but all the controversy lately humbles me and I need to do more research before contributing to the discussion.

However, I don't want chain splits. I think we don't need drivechains right now. I think there isn't enough demand at the moment because there is no obvious problem that drivechains would solve right now. So when this changes, I think more people will be on board.

I haven't read what Paul Sztorc wrote that everyone thinks he's pressuring devs, but if that's the case, I think that will backfire (as it currently seems). Pressure is not an option imo. People need to see the problem first before they look for a solution.

Now I have given my opinion without much research anyway, lul

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @danieltapa 2 Sep 2023

the proposal is from 2014.. how is Paul Sztorc pressuring devs? i think the recent heating up is because of people learning and being more convinced by it.. (btw i also don't have a strong opinion on it)

0 sats \ 14 replies \ @inverselarp 2 Sep 2023

there isn't enough demand

Bitcoin dominance falling is the single best indicator that there is quite a lot of demand

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 3 Sep 2023

Broken metric, change my mind

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @random_ 2 Sep 2023

Bitcoin Dominance is up from 41% to 49% YTD.

Huh?

100 sats \ 9 replies \ @inverselarp 2 Sep 2023

Zoom out. Dont live in the denial, there are interesting features that are either completely missing or are complicating effective implementations (eg LN). Those missing primitives are missing not because of Satoshi’s grant plan but because his lack of knowledge, state of the art, missing industry experience. I am 100% sure if Satoshi has second chance to create bitcoin it would look very different.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @random_ 2 Sep 2023

It's clear you do not know what you are talking about.

A new, anonymous, account manufacturing support for a change to Bitcoin. Even in the face of contradictory evidence. Your interests and your imagination mean nothing to me.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @inverselarp 2 Sep 2023

I actually do but ok. Iq80s wont stop this since most of them cant even run their nodes.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 2 Sep 2023

That's adorable. Time will tell.

reply on another page

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @orthzar 2 Sep 2023

there are interesting features that are either completely missing

A feature being interesting is not a sufficient reason to add it to any program. The feature must contribute to the purpose of the program beyond what the feature costs to implement/maintain. Bitcoin's purpose is very narrow, which is why Satoshi didn't include other interesting features (e.g. a Turing-complete scripting language).

There are plenty of altcoins that provide those interesting features. They work right now and a lot of people are using them.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @inverselarp 2 Sep 2023

So you think that having Satoshi had a second chance and equiped with all today’s knowledge he would built Bitcoin as it is now?

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @orthzar 2 Sep 2023

He certainly would have made a few changes (i.e. to avoid bugs like the 2011 inflation bug) and he may or may not have made other changes (e.g. smaller blocks).

But his goal of ending monetary inflation would have remained the same. Considering inflation has gotten significantly worse since 2009, Satoshi probably would have been even more adamant that Bitcoin was made to end inflation.

Fortunately, there are plenty of Bitcoiners who have been adamant about that specific goal.

view replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @badabing 3 Sep 2023

Missing industry experience lmao

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @inverselarp 3 Sep 2023

In 2008/9 there was not much decentralized digital currency industry to exprience

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 2 Sep 2023

demand from bitcoiners and afaik, bitcoin dominance can be misleading if you account for stablecoins

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @inverselarp 2 Sep 2023

WBTC

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 3 Sep 2023

Bcash turned out to be a complete failure and a joke of a chain. But that's ok because bcashers pretend they like to use it?

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 2 Sep 2023

A transaction that goes against drivechain rules but adheres to pre-drivechain rules will trigger a chain split.

From my understanding, because this is a softfork, satisfying this condition is extremely difficult?

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @patrick2 2 Sep 2023 freebie

The anti-drivechain stuff is just getting out of hand.

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @FishyStick 2 Sep 2023 freebie

The pro-drivechain stuff is just getting out of hand.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatoshisSkeleton 2 Sep 2023

Lol good 1

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 2 Sep 2023

I advocate for this split not just for potential profits, but also because it's a peaceful solution.

To be honest, chain splits sound like war, not peace.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @supratic 2 Sep 2023

Let them do it, it's a free market right? They're free to fork how many times they want

120 sats \ 1 reply \ @Winitober 2 Sep 2023

Matthew Kratter from Bitcoin U did an analysis of the situation. Saylor also makes a good point that what Bitcoin needs is stability and this desire to make radical changes isn’t helping. Bitcoin has a use case. It’s money. This drivechain idea is a solution in search of a problem. Let’s wait a decade and then see what solutions become available on layer 2 and 3. Many said that Bitcoin couldn’t scale without increasing the block size and look how Lightening and Fedi have changed the discussion.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatoshisSkeleton 2 Sep 2023

100%.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @SpaceHodler 3 Sep 2023

As a node runner since this summer, I'll have a say for the first time. For now I'm leaning towards the conservative route. I don't have strong arguments against drivechains other than "if it ain't broken don't fix it", which in the case of Bitcoin is of existential importance.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 3 Sep 2023

Second this.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @SovranSystems 2 Sep 2023

One can jump up and down all they want and demand bitcoin to be this or that. Good news is, to get a BIP passed is hard and long work. Almost impossible.

So someone trying be popular by posting some shit proposal, to get likes and make his investors happy, can go kick rocks.

Bitcoin will always be bitcoin wither you like it or not.

Tick Tok next block.

Don't waste people's time with the new fad BIP that is shit and trying to make it sound like it is not shit.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 2 Sep 2023

Fork and run it!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @2bithits 2 Sep 2023

What will the new fork be called? DBTC?

Or we could get miners to signal support for drive chains like they did with taproot

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @2bithits 2 Sep 2023

What will the new fork be called? DBTC?

Or we could get miners to signal support for drive chains like they did with taproot

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheBTCManual 2 Sep 2023

Let the market of ideas play out, whats one more chain really when there are already so many? Put your money where your mouth is if you have the conviction that the market will value it that much it should beat out the non drive chain, chain no?

I mean if the BT-DC chain works out and it absorbs all the altcoins into itself and its BTC and BT-DC im cool with that too