Ah, thanks for outlining this scenario... So if most node operators don't upgrade their node to "version drive chain" than the bitcoin locked up in drivechains would likely get pillaged to the point that no one would risk locking up bitcoin in a drivechain?
Discussion
And a URSF would be a preemptive way of node operators signalling that they wouldn't "drivechain" at this point?
Nodes can signal whatever they like, but itās an unreliable metric. A malicious actor could spin up any number of zombie nodes to Sybil whatever signal they prefer.
This was a concern during the BIP148 UASF of 2017. Many nodes were announcing their intent to enforce the fork, but nobody knew how many of those nodes represented real peopleās actual interests.
For this reason, the #UASF campaign on Twitter was an important additional signal showing support.
Nope, don't listen to this guy it fake info and he's pulling shit out of their ass.
yes
If node operators are not enforcing the fork, then it is in every minerās immediate financial interest to assign to themselves the escrow coin. For this reason, I predict that the coin will be swept (cold, hard incentives).
One could make the argument that minersā long term interests are better served by keeping the drivechain going (that is, by safeguarding the escrow). The question is whether miners (mining pools, specifically) believe that it is in sufficient quantity to ignore defectorās blocks.
Do miners have the collective will to keep each otherās hands out of the cookie jar?