I'm against it. Way too risky to change miner incentives that way. Something like Liquid is much safer than drivechains & Liquid isn't even really being used. We have already established that miners don't get to decide how Bitcoin changes, users do. I don't think it will happen.
Discussion
Exactly. “Only miners matter” is a common refrain from the SV folks. Common Shitcoiner misunderstanding.
Miners serve at the pleasure of node operators, who hold the power to reject their blocks (for any reason).
Please don't write so aggressively! So first of all, a Bitcoiner is not a Shitcoiner. And secondly, in the END the miners decide which update they support. And I didn't take a position on the BIP-300 😉
Miners are free to mine whatever they want. If they want to get paid, then they mine the blocks that node operators will accept.
Please don't write so aggressively! So first of all, a Bitcoiner is not a Shitcoiner. And secondly, in the END the miners decide which update they support. And I didn't take a position on the BIP-300 😉
I think there are some misunderstandings on how #Bitcoin consensus works. https://youtu.be/vM_Ski2eK6A
Big block supporters lost the block size war even with supoort from 80+% of the miners & large exchanges because they didn't understand Bitcoin's security model. Economically active nodes set the rules. Read the Blocksize War & listen to Bitcoin Audible, or stay stupid.
I agree that economically active nodes such as exchanges or wallets are important in deciding the outcome of a fork but these actors are not the same as « users » but even those actors can’t setup the rules alone. It really depends on the particular scenario et dynamic at play.
Big block supporters lost the block size war even with supoort from 80+% of the miners & large exchanges because they didn't understand Bitcoin's security model. Economically active nodes set the rules. Read the Blocksize War & listen to Bitcoin Audible, or stay stupid.
