What's the End Game?

================

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.