Could you explain what hes saying here in more detail? It seems like the arguement is
1. Drivechains make miners more money so they are harder to bribe
2. Liquid could create MEV too, so its hypocritical to not accept MEV from drivechains.
Assuming thats accurate,
To 1, I assume we all accept the economic principle that prices fall to the marginal cost of production. If drivechains cause hash prices to fall, all that does is drive out miners that cant compete on MEV. That would make you feel very secure and "powerful" if you were the top pool operator, and that appears to be what Paul is referring too, but why that is a "good thing" eludes me. Again, miners arent getting bribed, they arent getting paid, they are directly collecting the fees because they will be building sidechain blocks. The idea that miners wouldnt jump at the idea to make more money just because they are making enough is thus an irrational conclusion, if they do not then they will be overtaken by a miner that will because of the affect on the hash price.
To 2, again, an arguement about something you dont like about bitcoin today doesnt justify aggrevating the situation. Pauls tendency to resort to these arguements is troubling, either drivechains are a good idea or they are not, when a hole gets poked in his game theory and he immediately starts pointing the finger at someone else it discredits him. At the very least he needs to do a better job defending his arguements, rather than this and the patronizing language from the first link. That aside, he says in-text that liquid hasnt implemented MEV as described, so evaluating that as an arguement is difficult.
/ Geist
npub1u3…g0nsw
2023-10-06 12:24:08
in reply to nevent1q…ze9h
Author Public Key
npub1u3ud495fjw9xf0lfjezu4l2rvkccn58dyr9w9e8f4jkr3xz590nqtg0nswPublished at
2023-10-06 12:24:08Event JSON
{
"id": "cbb1c2c014abc6e9a0429d0d8a4f28c1208f5640a5f4db38fef416e1ddae5af2",
"pubkey": "e478da9689938a64bfe99645cafd4365b189d0ed20cae2e4e9acac3898542be6",
"created_at": 1696587848,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"74c27cf56e029a8b81e8a9e1dc3e1229c2c6d509497278a96f8b77e08536f623",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b95baf0aaedb45b42bd59c2d66cfb51c70ffd6160dc328c9bfcecb637490de85"
],
[
"e",
"110de7def0fab1cf988e1b0e57dbfdac9e4ba85e212c8debbc047d1694d94f9a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d3d74124ddfb5bdc61b8f18d17c3335bbb4f8c71182a35ee27314a49a4eb7b1d"
],
[
"p",
"e478da9689938a64bfe99645cafd4365b189d0ed20cae2e4e9acac3898542be6"
],
[
"p",
"e478da9689938a64bfe99645cafd4365b189d0ed20cae2e4e9acac3898542be6"
],
[
"p",
"4ffc11bfa2f8516ae8bc7c6bf82275d358e47045446250be2d0e5612e2140828"
]
],
"content": "Could you explain what hes saying here in more detail? It seems like the arguement is\n1. Drivechains make miners more money so they are harder to bribe\n2. Liquid could create MEV too, so its hypocritical to not accept MEV from drivechains.\nAssuming thats accurate,\n\nTo 1, I assume we all accept the economic principle that prices fall to the marginal cost of production. If drivechains cause hash prices to fall, all that does is drive out miners that cant compete on MEV. That would make you feel very secure and \"powerful\" if you were the top pool operator, and that appears to be what Paul is referring too, but why that is a \"good thing\" eludes me. Again, miners arent getting bribed, they arent getting paid, they are directly collecting the fees because they will be building sidechain blocks. The idea that miners wouldnt jump at the idea to make more money just because they are making enough is thus an irrational conclusion, if they do not then they will be overtaken by a miner that will because of the affect on the hash price.\n\nTo 2, again, an arguement about something you dont like about bitcoin today doesnt justify aggrevating the situation. Pauls tendency to resort to these arguements is troubling, either drivechains are a good idea or they are not, when a hole gets poked in his game theory and he immediately starts pointing the finger at someone else it discredits him. At the very least he needs to do a better job defending his arguements, rather than this and the patronizing language from the first link. That aside, he says in-text that liquid hasnt implemented MEV as described, so evaluating that as an arguement is difficult.",
"sig": "c16b0e952d6b4d37f21362a2ba15da7e849c1d799b4cc147b5bff29c46826c7c745cfc7ba2cbe80796274704606c5f0867c9447ed14b6d52330c3661ec84cbed"
}