Author: ZmnSCPxj 2023-08-30 01:04:18+00:00
Published on: 2023-08-30T01:04:18+00:00
In the email, the sender discusses various points related to miners in the Bitcoin network and the contentious nature of drivechains and recursive covenants. The sender explains that existing Bitcoin miners only have the ability to reorder transactions but not to spend funds directly. Drivechains, on the other hand, escrow a set of funds to miners, allowing them to vote and spend those funds as they please. However, this raises concerns as it potentially enables miners to censor transactions.The sender further highlights that miners need to provide proof external to what they are controlling, allowing for the possibility of eviction. Proof-of-work mining incentivizes honest non-censoring participants to acquire energy and hardware to perform mining, as censored transactions will increase their feerates. In contrast, proof-of-stake schemes cannot evict because once a coalition of stakers exists, they can censor new staking transactions. Therefore, honest participants cannot break into a proof-of-stake scheme captured by a majority of censoring stakers.The sender then mentions that the proposed scheme appears similar to proof-of-stake, where a richer adversary could gain more than 51% voting rights by spinning up more capacity. It is important to consider that in the Real World, many people have diverse capabilities.Overall, the email focuses on the role of miners in Bitcoin, the potential implications of drivechains, and the differences between proof-of-work and proof-of-stake mining.
Updated on: 2023-08-31T01:58:55.674609+00:00