It skews miner incentives afaik.

The miners get paid for mining the sidechains..

Which is fostered by peg in peg out mechanisms

(Which is the weak point in literally every shitcoin imaginable, there has yet to be a fully non trust based peg mechanism)

So lets say there is a shitstorm that happens on sidechain A. They try to cone back to settle and said dispute goes to miners they get to decide which transactions are the " legitimate " transactions. It puts entirely way too much power into thier hands. So a good amount of colluding miners could essentially be swayed to mine the group that wants thier TXs to be legit and fuck the other party since the peg in and out is trust based.

Humans are flawed, #bitcoin is beautiful because ownership has 0 human intervention when deciding custody.. drivechains make it possible for human intervention for arbitrary reasons... and if its one thing we can be sure of humans have the ability to intervene they will and do so..

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Yes, and the fact that this whole process you describe is complicated and ultimately involves “politics” is under appreciated. There could be many ideological in addition to financial reasons why miners might vote for or against one sidechain, or for or against one judicial decision regarding the re-peg.

It’s a new way to wield power and it could provide more incentives than thin mining margins.