Subnostr

The arguments I can see against #BIP300 so far:

1) #Drivechain will strongly be associated with the #Bitcoin brand. Something bad happening in a drivechain (hack, scam) would reflect poorly on the #BTC brand.

2) Drivechains could siphon liquidity from the base layer. A drivechain’s token may attract more liquidity than BTC.

3) Drivechains could introduce regulatory risks. If a drivechain isn’t decentralized or is deemed non-compliant, it could help authorities to make the case for regulating Bitcoin.

4) Drivechains haven’t been properly reviewed and tested yet. There is no rush to deploy them.

#Blockchain #Crypto

LogicallyMinded 2y ago

Here is how I would counter these arguments:

(2) Fragmentation of liquidity will happen regardless of whether #drivechain are implemented or not. Actually it has already happened with other #crypto #blockchain syphoning liquidity from #Bitcoin. Even for #BTC maxis, it would be preferable for this liquidity to remain within the Bitcoin ecosystem. To stop liquidity fragmentation, you’ll need to stop innovation in the crypto industry which can’t be done.

(3) Although it may help authorities to make the case to further regulate Bitcoin. Authorities will make a case for more Bitcoin regulations whether or not they can use drivechain to support their narrative. The narrative may be less compelling but no one can stop governmental propaganda and that shouldn’t refrain bitcoiners from innovating.

(4) Some valid point have already been made

(1) I really don’t have a strong argument against this one if not that the damage to the Bitcoin brand would be due to a lack of understanding on how drivechains work but brand perception is all subjective. It won’t be the first time the Bitcoin brand will be under attack and it won’t be the last. Education is a perpetual battle.

Reply to this note

Discussion