Replying to Avatar j

Federated multisig -> known set of custodians (can't be anon because it would make it vulnerable to a sybill attack) easy for the government to coerce. yes, even in multiple jurisdictions since governments today act in lockstep

Drivechain -> Sybill resistant, annonymous, dynamic, and incentive aligned custodians. Very hard for the governmenr to identify.

Obviously drivechains are superior, how do you not see this?
Avatar
Vlad, Bitcoin Takeover Podcast 2y ago

Guy doesn’t remember how miners activated Taproot. Otherwise, he wouldn’t call them “passive” 😅

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
RealJohnDoe 2y ago

Regardless of who activated #TapRoot. I think the consensus now is to deactivate #TapRoot. So that's what will happen..💀

Avatar
Guy Swann 2y ago

Miners didn’t activate it in opposition to anybody. There was no controversy about taproot, there was merely disagreement about how to implement.

This is literally exactly what I’m talking about. As soon as changes are outside of passive consensus, we have an enormous mess. While people are literally demanding this be the primary mechanism of transaction dispute for the overwhelming majority of payments and networks.

If you are using the taproot soft fork as an argument *against* the passivity of miners, then you’re only explicitly calling attention to what a utter mess an ecosystem of DCs could really be.