Author: Cameron Garnham 2017-04-15 08:05:10
Published on: 2017-04-15T08:05:10+00:00
The writer of the email disagrees with the recipient's view that miners can be passive participants in the Bitcoin Network. The writer states that the miners are political actors and there are three miner groups; those who use AsicBoost legally, those who use it without legal sanction and those who do not use it. Due to this, the writer believes that SegWit cannot be a 'passive' option for miners as there is no logical reasoning to suggest that a theoretical "passive participant" miner exists, and there is evidence suggesting one does not exist. Regarding BIP16 vs BIP17, the writer cannot see how BIP148 has similar engineering tradeoffs. There may be long-term technical debt from BIP148 that the writer is unaware of, which could be similar to BIP16. The writer believes that the miners are not passive participants when it comes to any form of activation of SegWit. Lastly, the writer comments on the drama surrounding Bitcoin and notes that $100M p/a can pay for lots of drama. The writer believes that the only way to be free from the war is if we choose to not let it impact us as much as possible and continue working at the same level of excellence. Internet drama is remarkably cheap to generate and the alternative is that we hand opponents a ready made formula for disruption.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T00:09:56.116881+00:00