My last post advocating for a Bitcoin chain split drew various reactions. Some labeled me as irresponsible, while others claimed I was undermining proof-of-work (I wasn't) or promoting a hard fork (again, I wasn't). The critics want more technical discussions to reach a consensus.
Here's the core issue: what's the endgame for drivechains? We've debated the technical aspects for seven years. Do we expect new information that will suddenly unite everyone?
The reality is, those in favor of a drivechains soft fork aren't going away. If anything, they will grow louder. So, what's the end result of endless discussions?
Prolonged debate without consensus not only wastes time but stall other valuable updates. I'll remind you that seven years of discussion have not resolved this issue.
A peaceful resolution now has a lot of benefits. We can put much of this debate to bed by engaging the market instead of claims made by marketers. We can see whether the things promised by the advocates actually come to pass and we'll learn a lot more about miner incentives.
Of course, there are other ways to resolve this conflict besides a chain split, such as creating a separate chain, using a different sidechain mechanism, or adding the needed op codes in an altcoin. Yet, these options have been available for seven years and haven't been pursued by the drivechain advocates. I think those are better resolutions than a chain split and a successful use case would be the best way to convince those of us that are skeptical of the drivechainers' claims. But that's not what they're doing and so we are at loggerheads.
In summary, the drivechain debate isn't resolving itself. A split will end this divisive conversation and allow us to focus on more productive projects like improving the Lightning Network or furthering Taproot features.
It still feels like clarity is what's missing the most here. As always we, bitcoiners, all seem to be in general agreement, but we over-focus on the small differences that are often caused by just misunderstanding each other.
So we seem to be in a situation where there are multiple competing proposals that try (slightly) expanding the expressiveness of bitcoin Script and there are multiple usecases that people are hoping for that require this expressiveness. Of course when expanding expressiveness of programming language, it's not possible to foresee how it's going to be used in future, but at the same time having couple actual needs and usecases in mind helps.
Is there a table that would do a good job summarizing what are all the proposals and what usecases would be enabled by any of those? (formatting wise something like this) Hopefully that would at least yield clarity into what proposals should be clearly subsumed by others and only leave small number of actually competing ones.
For each of the proposals it would be amazing if we can get
  • How many lines of code it changes (e.g. using draft/example implementation)
  • Which other proposals can be used to simulate the same behavior (and what would be the extra cost)
  • What are the incentive changes for Miners, Node Runners, Users, Exchanges...
  • Who are the main proponents/drivers
  • Who are the main customers
Is there such a table?
And further on my wishlist - it would be amazing to have someone great like Elle Mouton write the deep-dives, explanations and comparisons in easy to digest way.
reply
100% this. I am sw dev so i am technical. I am Bitcoin user for about 10y yet i never took the time to get deep into Bitcoin codebase. To me goals of DCs make sense because those are general good sw design practices (layering, isolating the risk, extensibility). I am very open to arguments against yet i have not seen any presented in a form that would make sense to me. Unknown unknowns in not an argument for me. I was hoping for good write up from Peter Todd (i am so sucker for this guy) so i can finally make my decission. I feel like most of pro-DC crowd is exactly like this so someone like OP (which i am also big fan of) taking time to write good summary could actually help to resolve this situatuon.
reply
Peter Todd is such a valuable voice in the space. Concerning drivechains, if you look at his last comment on SN you might get an idea on his stance, but I would also appreciate his input here. If a personal bounty would be required for his valuable time and effort, I'd be happy to help fund it.
reply
"Approach NACK: given that drivechains has fundamental flaws unrelated to the exact implementation, there's no reason to distract Bitcoin Core development with this pull-req, even in draft form. What's holding Drivechains back is the idea itself, not the code.
You haven't even bothered to write or link a high-level BIP-style overview of this take on the idea. Writing a bunch of detailed code is a waste of time."
And some fanatics below are impertinent enough to scream: "You need to see a psychiatrist" - while he is talking about tail emission or demurrage as solution to other threat for Bitcoin, i.e. so painfully obvious lack of free market in post-subsidy era.
reply
We waded through the crisis narrative swamp during the blocksize war. We were warned that bitcoin would die and be replaced by something else because it couldn't scale and needed to do so immediately, apparently the world at large needed it immediately, some imbeciles even suggesting by 2018 it might be too late. The same bullshit is repeating itself with the faux security budget saviors trying to run their fork, inscription, and side-chain into the womb of a 15-year-old protocol. We need to fix the security budget immediately! No, you need to see a psychiatrist, and work on your self-control. Bitcoin's hashpower won't death spiral, security won't be deprecated allowing for 51% reorg fantasies, leaving a void to be filled by something else. There's a subtext to everything the big-blockers and chain-gang say if you listen and don't just hear:
PUMP MY BAGS
Bitcoin is on a long, difficult, and organic road from store of value, to transactional currency, to unit of account. The steps can't simply be leapfrogged, or sped up, like "crypto" would have you believe. There are many reasons for that outside the protocol which is a subject beyond the scope of this reply, but drivechain is ancient. It seemed relevant back in 2014 before the regulatory environment arrived, before "crypto" arrived, before Taproot arrived, before the immense innovation on the LN arrived. Drivechain frankly looks quite myopic and silly in retrospect. We don't need a 2050 fee environment in 2023 to satisfy your Lambitions.
reply
What a post!
reply
right, only "some imbeciles" would like it... (while drivechain is sh*t, ofc)
reply
Bitcoin's hashpower won't death spiral, security won't be deprecated
Of course it will be. Of course, in the long-term, like decades. Simply because: There is no way to hide consequences of lack of free market
Even in such a good thing like Bitcoin. Or maybe especially in such a good thing...
reply
is this you kurt ?
reply
My thinking on that @jk_14:
reply
and my favourite was: "Mining is slowly leaving the pleb world behind and industrializing"
Don't even think that 10-20 years later the corporations will be mining at loss, "in the name of Bitcoin"... :)
reply
Many have mined at a loss, contingent upon current hashpower, energy inputs, and BTC price, or more accurately, their economy of scale. The access to capital thing (and at what %) playing a big role. Governments don't have these constraints. It's difficult for me to believe that Oman, Russia, etc, are building out mining facilities to capture 6.25 BTC per day with 1% of hashpower. The value isn't there this late in BTC's issuance, even with BTC at $5M per coin, but it is there with censorship resistance of however many billions (trillions eventually) they can fit inside a single block. Too, there's no way any viable tax haven doesn't mine in a cashless world where the on/off ramps are surveilled via CBDCs. Just trying to think big here, bigger than inscriptions and sidechain crypto speculation.
reply
I'll remind you that seven years of discussion have not resolved this issue
The discussion has never been anywhere near the levels its at today and they probably won't continue in the same way after Layer 2 Labs runs out of funding. This is essentially a war of attrition to see if enough of the developer community can wind down support for drivechains to kill it when the movement has less money behind it.
reply
I'm not sure how many vital on chain BIPs have been delayed over the past 7 years, but there have been enormous advances in Lightning Network development, and investment and excitement in that area is only increasing. As a U.S. citizen I always root for total gridlock politically, which prevents either side from doing anything dramatic. That's kind of how I feel now re the drive chain debate.
reply
This โ€œgridlockโ€ approach has created the uniparty which has created forever wars ungodly levels of debt and a complete abandonment of the American people. For better or for worse a dramatic change will happen eventually itโ€™s human nature
reply
Bitcoin's biggest strength is it's resistance to change. The end game is to reinforce this message and remind everyone it's not an alt coin. There is a lot of value in saying no.
We win by staying strong on the core values, not by succumbing to weakness and becoming ETH. People who hold Bitcoin, those who did the work, understand this.
reply
It's too much noise about nonsense like drivechains or ordinals. The end game is when it comes to a deflationary bust at the bond market and capital will be searching for save haven assets. That's the hour of btc and gold. Sound money!
reply
Actually I think a peaceful resolution is the most likley path.
The BIP has had wide review, and there is not community appetite for it at this time. There are some holes in it imho, they could tweak the proposal and come up with something better. But it might have to be a new group that pushes it.
Rightly or wrongly, 80% of the btc community is against it. There's just no way you can reverse that anytime soon. Even if you got 80% to switch, and I dont think anyone can do that, you still have enough to block it. Bear in mind you only need 6% consensus to veto all new side chains. There's a million ways to stop it, if it is the will of the community.
They wont get MASF, and even if they did, what then? You're really going to take on a $500 Bn eco system that doesnt want something with a bunch of nervious miners that dont really want to get involved in a war. Saylor on the mining committee has come out against.
Any hard fork would be crushed in a heartbeat. The trolling will die down, it will get blocked or diluted.
The BIP has been educational and asked some interesting questions. I even added a constructive proposal that might fix Paul's broken game theory. We will get stratumv2 in time, and many flavours of side chains I'm sure, and also strategies to help with the security budget.
Playing with the dials here is fun, and shows that between now and 2032 there is work to be done in hardening the tail emssion. It's good for everyone because higher security leads to higher price, and a longer life for bitcoin. Something that everyone wants.
reply
I am wondering what a prediction market (using sats) would say about a chain split happening or not ...
I would bet 100k sats that there won't be a chain split
reply
I would bet more!
In the case of a chainsplit where I lose the bet, I would dump the BTC-DC coins, so win-win.
reply
lol, didn't think of that
How much would you bet? For example, if the terms are chain split until EOY, yes or no?
reply
I would add a caveat to the bet: It has to be a widely endorsed fork, as pretty much anyone can create a fork of Bitcoin Core!
I would bet 1M sats that a DC fork does not appear on Coinbase before 2025.
reply
Oh, somehow I thought you want to bet against me lol
I would bet 1M sats that a DC fork does not appear on Coinbase before 2025.
Mhh, sounds reasonable
Guess I would bet 1M sats too
Anyone wants to take the bet? lol
reply
Go ahead and split the chain, why are you trying to convince us? Release the code and see who runs it.
reply
Bruh it if happens I'm exchange my drive chain coins for core btc...lol haha same as had I been around for btc cash sorry not sorry
reply
It's already Done with Marvel ๐Ÿ˜…๐Ÿ˜…๐Ÿ˜…๐Ÿ˜…โšก
reply
How about.... bitconeeeeeect?
reply
The reality is, those in favor of a drivechains soft fork aren't going away. If anything, they will grow louder.
Exactly, this echoes the endless debate we had with big-blockers and allowed us to focus on more productive endeavours.
reply
I don't know the end game but I think 2017 is a good case study in the importance of consensus
reply
The end game is Sidechain DAO getting enormously rich