Yeah it all seems messy.
Okay, let’s say you have the ability to stop drivechain with a another soft fork, and you have to choose:
1. Don’t upgrade, and your node is not effected whatsoever
2. Upgrade to drivechain to either use it, or as a tool to have available just in case
3. Install the blocking soft fork so that nobody else can use drivechain
Why would someone choose 3 over the other options?
Node runners are usually running a node, because they have made a conscious decision to be a participant in the network. There is no payoff beyond validating your own copy of the blockchain, broadcasting your own transactions, and private querying of the mempool and blockchain.
So you have to wonder what *kind* of people would do that, and the broad majority of those are pretty much ideological participants.
And your asking why ideological participants would go to the effort of #3, when they've already gone to all the other effort of running a node? Tell me you weren't around for UASF without telling me yOu weren't around for UASF.
Sorry, I think my question wasn’t very clear. I mean why, ideologically, would someone actively forbid others from using drivechain?
Wen mute keywords in nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955?
Perhaps, because they are vested in the long-term stability of Bitcoin, they will have a level of unease with the under-scrutinized added complexity that drivechains adds to the game theory. You would have to poll all the URSF node runners to know exactly why.
Maybe it's simply "fuck that bcasher and his nerd project"
