No it doesn’t. It’s a very poor system for pegging in/out of a sidechain with arguably little benefit, and some differences I would consider worse, than a simple, widely federated multisig.
I also can’t see anyway that it solves the “not your keys not your coins” issue which it is so unambiguously claimed to do. It replaces keys with hash power voting, which introduces a major risk and uncertainty with miner involvement.
Miners are currently passive providers of security. There is no ambiguity or confusion about how they operate. The introduction of drivechains would suddenly require them to be active judges for an ecosystem of arbitrarily large & complex alternative networks.
Not only does it introduce complexities and uncertainties for miners by forcing them to be active participants, but if they choose to ignore it, then the whole benefit of the drivechain ecosystem - which is already questionable - even more pointless. Because it makes it not only a potential negative, but there’s no reason to consider it secure unless the majority of miners are willing to become active judges in a series of payment networks of unbounded size with unknowable validation costs.
After a significant amount of reading and digging into drivechains. I’m pretty firmly in the “no” camp.
