If I had to steelman the reverse:
Basically all of our sidechain designs currently amount to this same thing. So a federated sidechain is a voting system too, it’s just permissioned. So you can know exactly who the voters are. So in that sense DC has some benefits and some drawbacks. DC is actually a novel way to accomplish this by using enormous security infrastructure that already exists, and could be a great option in the toolset for scaling.
My problem is that any changes at all can obviously have unintended consequences (cough* inscriptions *cough*). And messing with miner incentives/profitability - even in a way that seems beneficial at first glance - is extremely dangerous territory. So I’m deeply skeptical that if this isn’t some vastly superior system, with its own set of potential problems, that messes with miner incentives — where we already have an uphill battle to make them further decentralized — that it will have the momentum necessary to get a soft fork through.
Still open to all of this. But I don’t yet see a clear “ok this is obviously and vastly better to have, than to not have.”
TheGuySwann / Guy Swann
npub1h8…6rpev
2023-08-29 15:28:03
in reply to nevent1q…lzzs
Author Public Key
npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpevPublished at
2023-08-29 15:28:03Event JSON
{
"id": "b3a793fdd3a68ca96c64e05cabf5f65160dd8f0d11faffc3174e21b56cc2b4de",
"pubkey": "b9e76546ba06456ed301d9e52bc49fa48e70a6bf2282be7a1ae72947612023dc",
"created_at": 1693322883,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2278e8659a0b391a0f725efd61c0703154483095bc06c42c2bc1bb7cbe18f9af"
],
[
"p",
"27f8c81a7d7b2b2166f283fddf71d9b7a068ffea7051e8db24d2f83d8143c188"
]
],
"content": "If I had to steelman the reverse:\nBasically all of our sidechain designs currently amount to this same thing. So a federated sidechain is a voting system too, it’s just permissioned. So you can know exactly who the voters are. So in that sense DC has some benefits and some drawbacks. DC is actually a novel way to accomplish this by using enormous security infrastructure that already exists, and could be a great option in the toolset for scaling.\n\nMy problem is that any changes at all can obviously have unintended consequences (cough* inscriptions *cough*). And messing with miner incentives/profitability - even in a way that seems beneficial at first glance - is extremely dangerous territory. So I’m deeply skeptical that if this isn’t some vastly superior system, with its own set of potential problems, that messes with miner incentives — where we already have an uphill battle to make them further decentralized — that it will have the momentum necessary to get a soft fork through. \n\nStill open to all of this. But I don’t yet see a clear “ok this is obviously and vastly better to have, than to not have.”",
"sig": "bd9fa601de55c133ee9a114a04330a814e1d4392ae2c6506f7f03c0842920d845a6bc4e0a5a9acf6712505a506f02caff95fcc3e61db79ed8d944cb6caad880a"
}