I don't mind drivechains. I do mind 51% attacks.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Drivechain is a 51% attack

EXACTLY! And this is what everyone must understand..⚖️👮‍♂️😠

Not necessarily.

Sure, it's not to someone who supports drivechain.

💾⛓️🚫

I'm neutral on drivechain. But whether it's an attack or not depends on deployment, not the protocol itself

Network splits are a threat to bitcoin. We've had a few already. Contentious forks are a vector for network splits.

Could you please break that down a bit more for me?

I assume you’re referring to the “silent”, miner coordinated soft fork.

You refer to an attack. Is there a way that this can hurt the base chain? For example, if I ignore that this exists, could it hurt the incentives or my BTC in some way?

It's impossible for a softfork to be silent or only implemented by miners. Attempting to do so is just an attack, not a softfork at all.

If Bitcoin users sit by and allow such an attack, it would be the end of Bitcoin.

I still don’t fully grok the attack. I can imagine you’re sick of the discussion (I saw you credited on the BIP website). Just hoping you’ll help me with more details.

I’ve read the BIP writeup. To me, it sounds like a side protocol like ordinals / inscriptions. Old node software versions would see it as meaningless data that only means something to the participating users.

Like I’m watching a baseball game and I see hand signs but don’t realize what they mean.

Is it really an attack though? Does it improperly change network incentives? Censor transactions? Some other harm to the base chain?

I get Lyn Alden’s point that we want the base chain to be resistant to change, but, unless I’m missing something, nothing appears to be changing from the perspective of old node software.

It’s like a private group of people coordinating to use the blockchain to pass messages to each other.

Again, appreciate any insight you can provide. 🙏

This isn't in the BIP

And ordinals aren't a side protocol, just an attack on Bitcoin

Exactly! And that's why the artificially inflated #fees from non-Bitcoin financial transactions have to go.

Along with #inscriptions like #ordinals #nfts #BRC20 etc. Including the proliferation of gigabytes of utxo fragments.

It's all an attack on Bitcoin, and has already ripped off the owners and users of #Bitcoin for millions of dollars in criminal fees..⚖️👮‍♂️😠

Hey Luke, Is this possible? We can't recognize those blocks?

Interested to hear Luke’s thoughts on that thread. 👆

This drivechain system seems to a private group of miners passing messages to each other, storing data in the base chain. They seem to be following the “rules”.

The drivechain proposal is overly complicated (with unknown long term consequences), but probably unstoppable if all current nodes will accept the data.

Let’s hope this is benign because if following the protocol rules is an attack, then bitcoin is fundamentally broken.

Rejecting valid blocks is not following the rules

It's an attack, not a softfork.

And it can be recognized.

*Worst case* it might require a PoW change to stop, but there's plenty of tools before that too

So Paul has failed to realize that the reason hard forks are hard is because of consensus with other nodes. Now he thinks his BIP 300 group is enough to hard fork off the rest of the network because he doesn't think the rest of the network willl URSF, I feel he's dead fucking wrong and I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

Miners are paid security. Don't follow the rules, don't get paid.

What they don't realize too is that all that #inscriptions crap that's getting uploaded into the blockchain can be programmed to help attack the blockchain from within..😐

How?