IMO, these two visions are not fundamentally incompatible. (For the purposes
of this email, I am going to refer to the two groups as "decentralisation-
first" and "adoption-first", respectively.)
Paul Sztorc's drivechains concept can potentially deliver miner-controlled,
much larger blocks in the near future. This comes at the expense of
decentralisation, of course, but as a drivechain, this loss does not directly
affect the main chain, which can continue to develop according to the goals of
the decentralisation-first group. There is a reduction in security of the
drivechain since miners effectively make all the final decisions for it, but
the adoption-first group tends to embrace and desire this miner-driven model
anyway.
So by using a drivechain, it is in fact possible to achieve two blockchains
achieving the goals of each group, and both remaining part of the same Bitcoin
network and using the same bitcoins.
Full Post - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-discuss/2017-June/000149.html
