This is not a normal industry. 51% attacks are possible. Drivechains allow miners to profit from attacking, whereas attacking #bitcoin is currently very costly.
Drivechains are an old idea and nothing has really changed. I think everyone is just getting impatient. It’s not the answer, sorry.
I guess you better tell bitcoin miners to stop mining Rootstock then.
Rootstock miners run a rootstock full-node. If all miners have to run sidechains full-nodes, costs skyrocket.
If miners use blind merge mining instead of running tons of sidechain full-nodes, then double-spending those chains becomes trivial because no one is fully validating them.
Open your eyes.
Scaling by raising the block size or by allowing miners to steal (beyond double-spending) is futile.
Miners have to attack for 3-6 months to steal coins on a Drivechain sidechain, the odds of this are statically almost zero as it will be transparent on the blockchain.
Drivechains make theft profitable!
3-6 months of time isn’t a suitable deterrent. The security standard of #bitcoin is greater than this.
So you admit sidechains will gather lots of users to help miners be profitable. This will be great for the longevity of the bitcoin network and increasing the overall security budget.
Having more users is pointless if you sacrifice trust-minimization. Same applies to #nostr…
That awkward moment when you realise 90% of nostr users are using Wallet of Satoshi. (Custodial wallets can steal now not in 3-6 months).
Exchanges are custodial too. Scaling through exchanges and drivechains are the evil path. Lightning won’t be custodial forever, unlike exchanges and blind merge mining.
Non-custodial Lightning is being solved: Lightning will evolve with LSPs, and Breez Lightning Rods will solve async Zaps in a trust-minimized way.⚡️
Unfollowed for putting words in my mouth.
If you can’t have an honest discussion, you’ll never make any progress no matter what your proposed solution is. Grifting agitates the cyber hornets.
Lightning will evolve with LSPs, and Breez Lightning Rods will solve async Zaps in a trust-minimized way. I’m optimistic as ever thanks to ZeroSync too.
LSPs can become easily centralised. And become the new middle men (banks) taking a cut in fees for payments.
I much rather greedy miners be the middle men as they need to maximise profits as well as think about their own longevity.
Trust-minimized middle-men > Middle-men who can profit from stealing your funds
Don’t you see miners are already like middle-men? The genius of satoshi is they are trust-minimized.
I thought you muted me.
ANyways, The trust mininzed middle men will also profit from fees for providing liquidity like how banks or credit cards for providing their service.
Profit from fees is good for miners and LSPs… profit from theft is bad. Understand?
Currently, there’s no way to profit from theft. Theft is currently very costly. 51% attacks aren’t profitable.
Currently, you’d have to pull-off a double-spend larger than the cost of your 51% attack to profit — but you’d temporarily tank the value of BTC doing a 51% attack, devaluing your ASICs.
With Drivechains, to profit you’d just 51% attack an unpopular sidechain and STEAL all the user funds… big difference!
“Miners making profits bad but LSPs making profits good”
Without miners the bitcoin network does not exist.
“Profit from fees is good for miners and LSPs… profit from theft is bad.”
That’s what I said^ are you stupid? Stop putting words in my mouth.
What are the odds of theft? Because it’s a risk but the odds are almost zero.
If I said it was “risk free” then you would say I was not being honest.
Mining on the scale of Bitcoin is different then on moneros cpu scale. Massive companies are having datacenters that are orders of magnitude more centralizing then it should be. Mining centralization was already a problem long ago.
The less miners a sidechain has, the easier it is to 51% attack. If all miners run a full-node for every sidechain, then all miners turn into centralized data centers.
If all miners use blind merge mining instead of running full-nodes for each sidechain, then no miners are validating the validity of the sidechain blocks which means they could be mining invalid blocks without even knowing it.
nostr:note18lgn6rcymdmr6jrpunlyahxn8y5zcx6k6ldppltkvpx6j6zn4fwswtx0fr
Yes, Lightning is not as decentralized as it should be but why not make Lightning better?
Are Lightning’s deficiencies a reason to bring those same deficiencies into bitcoin?
There are a lot of reasons to dislike the DC proposal, but I can’t get over how much of a hack it is. Overloading a transaction type is honestly something a junior dev would propose. It’s not how we should build the world’s money.
Some people should spend more time looking at the problems faced by ethereum (for example LSD) before they endorse drivechains. Learn from experience instead of blindly listening to assumptions thrown around on Bitcoin twitter.
Yeh it could be a disaster. Bitcoin could actually have popular apps that compete with shitcoin projects on ETH and competing privacy technology with Monero/Z-cash.
Yeh we cant have that. 
