Think deeper on this.
Maybe mining wasn't supposed to be mostly centralized corporations. In concept.
Satoshi intended plebs to mine off CPUs.
It has augmented significantly since then...
In theory, is changing the Core code good for the money itself?
Mining will be fine, as difficulty will adjust. Same security.
Agreed. Satoshi thought plebs would mine. He also thought miners would tend to use free energy.(i.e. heat their homes.)
"Some places where generation will gravitate to:
1) places where it's cheapest or free
2) people who want to help for idealogical reasons
3) people who want to get some coins without the inconvenience of doing a transaction to buy them
There are legitimate places where it's free. Generation is basically free anywhere that has electric heat, since your computer's heat is offsetting your baseboard electric heating. Many small flats have electric heat out of convenience." --Satoshi Nakamoto
If people can't mine for fiat gains on a mining pool, they could solo mine with a water heater. The odds of winning are slim, but it's +EV if you planned on using hot water anyway.
It's not like the state has a shortage of lottery customers. I believe we can keep the bitcoin timechain secure forever by aggregate "free energy" such as this.
That's why I don't think we need BIP 300. That and the fact that all that degen smart contract stuff is dangerous. Besides, we already have second layer sidechains like Liquid to experiment with this type of stuff.
According Satoshi, the security model of long term bitcoin, is not small lottery style mining, its fee's, is it not ?
Liquid has several design disadvantages. Even though its been open sourced recently, it still requires trusted parties within the ecosystem.
Drivechain does not. No one can run off with your money in a sidechain.
Liquid was designed for legal entities who could sue each other if one started stealing.
Matt's reply here is a commonnin defence of drivechains that is good, but not my favorite. It's one of the weaker defences, and only weak because of the counter position of most maxi veliefe that bitcoin number go up.
Claiming miners will need fees when your debate partner believes future miners will always make sufficient money of blocks because fiat will simultaneously lose value alongside it is not how bitcoinnwqs intended or designed. So if they do not know this or are ignoring it, i prefer leading with the stronger more universal reasons.
>Maybe mining wasn't supposed to be mostly centralized corporations. In concept.
>Satoshi intended plebs to mine off CPUs.
I cannot know the mind of satoshi or his intention. Perhaps he saw the present reality or not. He's not god or a parent i am supposed to carry out their will for. He was just a clever engineer who in cooperation with many others and their inventions, created bitcoin. Also, he intended fees to secure the network long term, the security model relies on this, from his perspective vased on the whitepaper of 2009.
We must deal with present reality. For instance, by your reasoning we should switch to Monero. It uses RandomX which eliminates ASICS completely and allows any regular laptop to secure the network. Switching to randomX (but not monero) happens to be one of the emergency measures that could be taken to circumvent a state level 51% attack by the way.
>In theory, is changing the Core code good for the money itself?
In theory and in practice yes. More intrusive and disruptive bips have been passed before. Bip300 will have fewer affects than taproot, simply because the affects are designed to be isolated to those who want to participate.
>Mining will be fine, as difficulty will adjust. Same security.
Maybe it will but the difficulty adjustment does not pay more money to miners or incentiviseS a dencentralized hash. I find miner arguments againsy DC to be a distraction. DC plays by the rules and dynamics that exist. Miner decentralization is an important issue and there are other projects trying to deal with that. But this bip is about sonething else.
I hope this comment was relevant, i did not read the ones further up the line.
Appreciate the thoughtful engagement. Lots to consider.
I appreciate your good faith engagement with the topic.
Please put tone and personalities aside and just look at the reasoning.
personality signals will mislead in this issue because several charismatic and trusted people in the space have much attention to lose from drivechain absorbing their projects.
Thanks. I have and do. I agree with Jimmy Song.
A hard fork settles everything.
I do not want BIP300 and think it's a bad idea in its self and is bad for Bitcoin. Not a fan. No argument has convinced me otherwise so far. 🤷 Just feel like it's only purpose is to let shitcoiners piggyback, and to let miners have more power and fees.
No thanks.
I believe it was Satoshi who said "one cpu, one vote"
But if I'm being honest, RandomX is not a perfect solution as anyone can buy more votes by purchasing more CPUs, but perhaps better than ASICs in some ways as it at least makes mining very accessible to plebs. Incentive to mine is also not as strong as Bitcoin (low, break even, or negative profit). You do it to help the network to make Monero more secure (for others and yourself), and/or to get some KYC free Monero.
