Nostr Web Client

> But I dont think the game theory holds up in its current form,

Agreed. 🤝

> and it would be an experiment and educational discussion, where some other new ideas emerge.

Ultimately, Bitcoin would survive the failed Drivechain experiment. My preference is to skip it.

There’s enough design space with Lightning, Taproot and now Nostr for experimentation. Introducing new and unpredictable incentives to main-chain mining is not worth the risk.

Melvin Carvalho 2y ago

But at some point we want bitcoin to be able to ossify and be a project that could last for centuries. DC folks, along with space chains etc. are the researchers and those that will push the conversation that bitcoin needs and is not getting enough attention. Else we could end up with large reorgs and no defense to it.

I agree there's a lot of innovation in those areas, espeically when you consider AI. But we do need R&D on the security budget and security factor both for sustainablity and also to raise the btc price ceiling.

Ulimately I think DC wont do much harm, and important things could come out of the research. I dont mind waiting another epoch too, but I fear people will just get complacent about an exponentially decreasing block subsidy, and not think about contingencies.

If that makes any sense ...

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

jimbocoin 🃏 2y ago

I disagree on the risk of harm and potential for benefit.

The harm is the increased risk of deep re-orgs and miner centralization (which is incentivized).

I see no benefit in supposed security budget research. Either the current block subsidy schedule will be sufficient for security or it won’t. If not, then some inflationary hardfork will emerge and become what we call “Bitcoin”.

No research is required. This is a problem for many years from now, to be solved by market selection.