Crowdfund is over! We've exceeded the goal by 140%!
Thank you all who participated!
Thanks also to @parkeralewis and @willcole of @ZapriteApp for their help in setting this crowdfund up.
Only one more day left in the Fiat Ruins Everything Crowdfund!
You can get a signed hardcover when that comes out in the next couple of months! Click the Zaprite link to buy directly with Bitcoin, Lightning, or Credit Card:
What's the End Game?
================
My last post advocating for a Bitcoin chain split drew various reactions. Some labeled me as irresponsible, while others claimed I was undermining proof-of-work (I wasn't) or promoting a hard fork (again, I wasn't). The critics want more technical discussions to reach a consensus.
Here's the core issue: what's the endgame for drivechains? We've debated the technical aspects for seven years. Do we expect new information that will suddenly unite everyone?
The reality is, those in favor of a drivechains soft fork aren't going away. If anything, they will grow louder. So, what's the end result of endless discussions?
Prolonged debate without consensus not only wastes time but stall other valuable updates. I'll remind you that seven years of discussion have not resolved this issue.
A peaceful resolution now has a lot of benefits. We can put much of this debate to bed by engaging the market instead of claims made by marketers. We can see whether the things promised by the advocates actually come to pass and we'll learn a lot more about miner incentives.
Of course, there are other ways to resolve this conflict besides a chain split, such as creating a separate chain, using a different sidechain mechanism, or adding the needed op codes in an altcoin. Yet, these options have been available for seven years and haven't been pursued by the drivechain advocates. I think those are better resolutions than a chain split and a successful use case would be the best way to convince those of us that are skeptical of the drivechainers' claims. But that's not what they're doing and so we are at loggerheads.
In summary, the drivechain debate isn't resolving itself. A split will end this divisive conversation and allow us to focus on more productive projects like improving the Lightning Network or furthering Taproot features.
Free issue for the first Monday of the month!
China, Natural Elites, Macro Environment, Podcasts about the book, collaborative FROST, Political MEV, LN Graph, Robosats Federation, Grayscale/SEC and more!
#Bitcoin Tech Talk #360
You will always have the complainers with you... Unless they fork off.
Honestly, this is the cleanest resolution and much better than another 7 years of belly-aching.
The Case for a Chain Split
The debate surrounding drivechains has been heating up, with proponents employing various tactics to garner support. This divisive issue echoes previous disputes in the Bitcoin community, such as the 2017 block size controversy. As such, we should consider what was then the definitive resolution: a chain split.
A significant portion of the Bitcoin community rejects drivechains, effectively blocking its implementation via a soft fork. Bitcoin's voluntary nature makes it resistant to hostile takeovers, despite claims that miners could force the change. Disagree with that last statement? Then let's put that to the test. We can resolve this posturing and propaganda by forking the code.
Here's how it would work: Code implementing drivechains would be released. Those who support the proposal can run this code. A transaction that goes against drivechain rules but adheres to pre-drivechain rules will trigger a chain split. Those running the drivechain software wouldn't be doing anything, but nodes that aren't can reject the drivechain chain by using the "invalidateblock" command. The result will be two distinct Bitcoins: one with drivechains and one without.
This approach was resolved the conflict we had in August 2017, when Bitcoin Cash split off from Bitcoin. Similarly, proponents and opponents of drivechains can either hold or sell their respective Bitcoins post-split. This would be a real-world test of control and game theory within the network.
I advocate for this split not just for potential profits, but also because it's a peaceful solution. It would let us see in real time how convicted the drivechain people are. Will drivechain miners support it if it means mining at a loss? A chain split would serve as a critical learning opportunity for the community, providing a clear answer to the ongoing debate. Ultimately, this will strengthen Bitcoin by showing the market how hard it is to change its properties.
So bring it on! Fork or shut up.
The False Dichotomy: Soft Forks vs. Innovation
----------------------------------------------
A common argument in the altcoin community is that Bitcoin isn't innovating, especially compared to newer, "advanced" altcoins. I've debunked this fiat argument in the past, as it equates bribed rent-seekers with entrepreneurs under the label of "developers." These arguments come from non-technical midwits that spew altcoin propaganda and have no interest in providing value.
Unfortunately, this argument has a particularly obnoxious form within Bitcoin where the so-called "moderates" argue that Bitcoin needs to implement more soft forks to continue innovating or progressing or gaining adoption. This argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, it's incorrect to say Bitcoin isn't innovating. Numerous developers are continually working on Bitcoin, not just in Core, but in the many projects building on top of it. Innovation doesn't just mean changes at the protocol level; it also happens in second layers. Innovation is happening in a permissionlessly.
Second, equating soft forks with innovation is not understanding the long-term consequences. Soft forks are permanent changes to the protocol, and implementing them doesn't necessarily make Bitcoin more innovative or better. In fact, rushing to add new features can introduce security vulnerabilities, a problem often seen in many altcoins. Worse, if the soft fork is a complete dud, we're stuck with it. Reversing a soft fork requires a hard fork. We're essentially stuck with these soft-fork changes forever so we'd better be careful about the changes we let in.
Third, there's a misconception that a lack of soft forks indicates stagnation. This view ignores Bitcoin's biggest strength: its decentralization. Because Bitcoin is not controlled by a single entity, it doesn't have a traditional roadmap or deadlines. This decentralization enables a more organic and safer form of innovation, primarily occurring in layers above the Bitcoin protocol.
Innovation in Bitcoin is not solely defined by the number or frequency of soft forks. The argument that Bitcoin is lagging because it isn't continually implementing soft forks misrepresents how genuine, sustainable innovation occurs. Such misunderstandings comes from a fiat, centralized mindset and the less credence we give to this assumption, the better off we'll be.
