I worry about this too. If the chain splits, and Saylor and BlackRock pull all their money out to invest in the hard fork, that would be a deceptive signal.
BlackRock has already said if the chain splits, they may not choose the "real Bitcoin". Drivechain is way too cypherpunk for them, so I think they will try to stop it.
It doesn't need to be a hard fork. You can still have a contentious soft fork, blocks of which are perfectly valid to unconcerned nodes, but rejected by URSF. Ascribing parties and bad intentions is premature here. Some nodes just don't want to deal with the externalities of the altered game theory; that would be conservatism; not maliciousness.
Also, do not count on miners to go charging forward with some contentious Drivechains change, if they could get even a whiff of substantial node rejection. They can't afford to fight for your cYpHerPUnK iDEalS when it is their electricity and revenue on the line.
i.e. most miners will bitch out without broad consensus among network participants INCLUDING nodes.
are you aware that this person is using the holy triple letters in vain? they literally called DC "cypherpunk". *cough*
I am not really sure what to call DC. If there is no proven demand for sidechains, hardly anyone uses sidechains, does it even matter if DC is cypherpunk? This largely feels like a lot of wasted energy for a solution that would have been DOA but not for a funded effort tryna meme it into existence.
seems like hella money going into it tho, i mean, there has to be at least 20 full time morons on the case. unless they are cult drones or something, collecting welfare. the whole thing is fishy to me.
“Shitcoiners will see the light and build on bitcoin!”
LOL, no they won’t.
Exactly. We don’t need shitcoiners to build on Bitcoin. They can build whatever they want. We just steal their code and use it on L2 Bitcoin, if we have a desire for that functionality. Or, Bitcoiners who value privacy and scaling can make the code even better.
There will be no PEPE sidechain, because it doesn’t do anything. There will be a zcash sidechain, and if I could use lightning with the same privacy as zcash, I most certainly would.
Ha. I just assume you are all AIs and this is an open-ended text adventure. The engagement over drivechains is an extension of ordinals or Stacks -- there is a growing "builder" pressure, full of people who don't know anything but how to work or influence within the "crypto" industry, and now that all their shit is collapsing, they are trying to jam all their failed ideas into bitcoin, bc they don't want to get real jobs.
funny that you assume ai's when humans are doing the whole nym thing too.
you know that public confession is a cult mind manipulation technique, right? they got the whole world doing it. even otherwise sane and sensible people are doxxing themselves all day long.
i want a real job, but not working for some shitcoin corporation that is, like you say, going down the shitter. nor do i want to be building infrastructure to spy on people. building for nostr, LN and bitcoin are the only tech jobs right now that aren't a diabolic contract.
i have pretty strong faith that bitcoin will resist the interlopers and infidels who have ridden all over people to get here. they all belong in a fiery pit of a volcano caldera. fate has brought me the capacities to get somewhere in this, i mean, i've even literally abandoned my steam game account, my gaming rig, my sound system, i got nothing left but to build something good for this new system.
Can you explain how URSF works? I’ve looked into it, but it seems like the people discussing it don’t really understand how it works.
If there is a version of Bitcoin Core that doesn’t have TapRoot, but it has CTV, how would this not be a hard fork?
A URSF simply works by rejecting blocks signaling for the contentious feature. It is a deliberate withholding of information from the rest of the network, meaning miners will have an easier time getting their expensively-made block propagated to the network by NOT signaling fpr DC.
URSF is a very new concept, so please excuse my ignorance of it. Do you know what individuals who run nodes would need to do, and what percentage of the nodes would need to do it?
It would be similar to UASF, which was wildly popular among node runners duringhe blocksize war . An alternative source branch would be forked from core, binaries would be made available, which each node runner would have to install, which sounds complicated, but node-in-a-box distros (like Raspiblitz or Start9) would probably provide an easy install menu item.
What percentage of node runners were necessaey would really depend on how committed the miners are to going to war.
Okay, this seems complicated. In the blocksize war, a majority of nodes didn’t have to do anything because they were battling a hard fork.
Let’s say 20% of node runners install these binaries, 5% install the drivechain upgrade, and 75% do nothing. Would that signal to the miners that 80% support the new soft fork?
I think there are a lot of factors at play here that make it difficult (for me at least) to say this is a straight equation. Of course the number of participants is important. But what is the threshold and time window for activation? Are the miners actually ready to produce DC-compatible blocks (signaling is not strictly readiness), and also what is their tolerance for risk of producing a block that might get beat out by a non-DC signaling block (the URSF can even block DC-signaling blocks before DC activation)? Miners have budgets and profit margins. Are they ready to assume this risk over a protracted, contentious battle? Can pools that signal for DC keep their participants from jumping to another pool that doesn't?
idk what he's talking about, readiness IS the signal.
If you're upgraded, you can certainly flag. But how do you know they aren't just running software that signals as a bluff? There is no guarantee. It is not a vote.
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"
if 75% do nothing, that's 75% that won't propagate blocks with the new garbage in them.
do you have dyslexia?
it sounds like bullshit to me. this is not how bitcoin works. user rejected. like if you don't actively deny it it is gonna pass.
excuse me if i sound stupid but if i don't upgrade to use the code how is that not rejecting it?
URSF was first proposed in 2022 as a counter to CTV. Here is Sjors Provoost and Aaron vonWirdum explaining it.
==========
Bitcoin Explained - The Technical Side of Bitcoin: Episode 57: User Rejected Soft Forks (URSFs)
Episode webpage: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bitcoin-explained/episodes/Episode-57-User-Rejected-Soft-Forks-URSFs-e1r577v
lol. "too cypherpunk" my ass. cipher deez nuts.
not to mention it weakens the security of the money use case.
