What if Bitcoin miners end up having more say over new features than developers do? For about a decade, building something new around Bitcoin meant either fighting to change L1 or taking the idea to another chain. The eCash fork from @BTCdrivechains takes a different route. It activates drivechains (BIP300/301), so developers can launch their own sidechains without asking the whole network to adopt them. If one fails, the base layer isn't affected. What caught my attention is where miners fit into this. Anyone can propose a sidechain, but miners decide whether it goes live. They also vote on withdrawals back to the main chain, and that vote runs for months before any coins are released. So they're not only securing blocks, they sit right between users and their money on the way out of a sidechain. Seven sidechains go live at launch, covering payments, privacy, prediction markets and token issuance. Miners earn fees from them, which should push them toward the ones people actually use. But on a young network with a small mining base, a hashrate majority is much easier to put together, and that majority is exactly who approves withdrawals. The long voting window is the safety net. And since sidechains are opt-in, that trust only applies to people who choose to move funds into one. I'm curious whether drivechains can turn miner involvement into an advantage instead of just another point of trust. The fork is expected around Thursday. If you self-custody your BTC, you get ECX 1:1. If it sits on an exchange, you're relying on that exchange to credit you. Wallet setup and coin splitting are covered here: https://t.co/hJGuTal598