Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/bitcoinlayers
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
everyone, and I mean everyone, lost their fucking mind at bitcoin magazine today. what they said wasn't that controversial
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
@redvelvet (or anyone who sees this) can you help me understand how PoX is = merge-mining in terms of "miner alignment"?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Red
@redvelvet
Let’s unpack. What’s miner alignment PoX is similar to merge mining in many ways. It’s more clear when observing it from a shared security parent/child chain relationship pov rather than mining pov
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
I've loosely defined miner alignment as 1) paying fees to miners for DA and 2) merge-mining because it's easy to opt into for btc miners IIUC, you have to run an entirely different mining set up to run PoX
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Red
@redvelvet
Btc miners get the fees from L1 txs to post DA regardless of also being an L2 ‘sequencer’ For PoX, miners simply have to include a block commit in the op_return field and bid some BTC. The BTC goes to the STX sta(c)kers & the STX coinbase rewards go to the winning btc miner commit(weighted by bid)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
Yes but claiming that PoX and sequencers are similar is false imo Sequencer consensus protocols exist to provide fast preconfirmations + atomic block building. you can fall back to L1 if sequencer goes down PoX is a separate consensus protocol for alternative blockchain w/ execution. no fall back if it goes down
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Red
@redvelvet
yea PoX miners/stackers are very different from an L2 sequencer but in the narrow lens of which actors are posting to DA to Bitcoin(and paying fees to post that DA), they fill the same role
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
but you can't reconstruct the state of stacks based on the data posted onto BItcoin?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
