I thought, when nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev noted that each additional chain would require a soft fork, that eventually miners and side chains could guild togethere to make a political barrier to entry by guild protectionism. Possibility?
After listening to nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev talk about #drivechains recently, I think I agree with his perspective.
The concept of miners voting for other coins is antithetical to the basis of Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. Human action means backing up your beliefs by taking making a clear decision. Voting is fine for unimportant things because it's a flawed a manipulatable system.
Committing to one path or another is how real value is determined. Anything less is sitting the fence. I don't have the technical background on this topic, but these decisions should be based on first principles.
What do y'all think? Is there something that I'm missing or am I completely off base in my logic?
#bitcoin #scaling #asknostr
Discussion
Yeah, maybe so. There's a lot to learn and it needs to be considered carefully.
Technically it isn’t a full one soft fork, more of a MASF that requires much less coordination from nodes, only users who want to use the sidechain need to worry about it.
It doesn’t really change my more pressing concerns but it’s worth clarifying that it’s not exactly that way despite needing coordination.
ahhh.... makes more sense then.