However, if it does successfully transfer to proof of stake, we're in for a long and exciting ride.
Trust is a valuable commodity these days.
I don't think miners can do anything about this. In the worst case, they coordinate to stop mining on N-1 block. But this requires an amazing level of coordination, plus network can directly bribe/reward next block producer by paying to `coinbase` address (real `coinbase`, not Armstrong's coinbase).
> "The Merge" will introduce catastrophic bugs, 0-days will appear.
This is why you have testnets.
> we're in for a long and exciting ride.
Definitely!
Moving fast and breaking things is great for things of no consequence, but for decentralized money -- I'm not a fan of this philosophy! I like slow, methodical, well tested, well reasoned code from the best minds in the space -- aka Bitcoin.
We agree on that. You misread my comment.
My risk tolerance is just different than yours. I've sold all of my BTC for ETH long time ago. Everyone is building on top of Ethereum, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin's meme about "every worthy usecase will get implemented on top of Bitcoin"... it's short-lived. Flippening is nigh, why would people re-implement something which exist on dominant chain on a chain that is subpar in every possible way?
And I disagree about best minds. Bitcoin hasn't produced anything of interest for a long long time. Most patient? Surely. Best? Not even close. Maxwell has missed zero-knowledge proofs in 2013.
Also, merge testnet is up already, making sure there are no significant issues.