Crypto Coins News - Ratings - Reviews
Keep in mind is just a thought exercise. This is all based on speculations and assumptions so bare with me.
Is there one that's more important than the other? Or both complement each other? I mean, at first glance users seem more important as miners would just mine something no one would use. On the other hand, users would be using a chain more susceptible to attacks as hashrate would be weak.
So imagine, Segwit for example, actually gets the majority of nodes support. A high percentage. But most miners, want to mine BU. Assume this eventually forks. What would make more sense? Answers might be biased so imagine the opposite: BU has most nodes yet segwit biggest percentage of miners.
I assume the most valuable chain would be the "main" one. So miners would be mining something and would have no one to buy into. On the opposite, the other version, although less secure, would have more users buying into and an ecosystem with a more solid infrastructure.
So in the end is all a matter of, which chain can get the opposite faction back. I might be biased but it would seem that the miners getting users back seems harder. As they would have no services to use. On the other hand, if the other chain has more users, less miners (which means the difficulty is less and chain more insecure), making the profit margins higher. So this version seems more likely to get the miner faction back. As their margins would be bigger and we assume miners work for profit and has more users which in theory implies more demand, which consequently would mean higher price. So they can mine in a less competitive chain with users willing to pay more.
Eventually the difficulty of both chains would even out, meaning both could potentially have the same hashrate. Now between a chain with hashrate X and more users and another one with the same hashrate and less users, new users who cause demand, would be more likely to join the chain with more users and services.
I mean security depends on miners, but miners are dependent on demand. And users are the ones who create demand, meaning eventually that chain would be the most secure, eventually.
This is all based on speculations, assumptions, most likely naive thoughts and would probably take a long time to play out, while both chains would obviously take a hit, but, does it make sense? I would love to see why the other chain would get the users back instead of the opposite like I said.
Other things to consider could be, finding a way to increase the security of the chain even with less miners (changing the mining algorithm?), cutting off the bad apples immediately? I know this is controversial (we don't have the need to do it atm and I think it won't scale to something like that) but assume BU mining power starts to increase a lot? Wouldn't it be easier to cut it off as soon as possible and fork, than later on when we have a bigger infrastructure, where the consequences would be bigger? Kinda like cancer. This is just an hypothetical situation, as I don't see it happening but it's always good to consider all the options 🙂
Hope this post makes sense and everyone can have a healthy discussion.