Nostr Web Client

Lightning essentially works via 6 degrees of separation. Every well connected hub makes it easier for individuals to manage a few channels, not harder.

People keep saying Liquid is KYC, but it looks to me like you can download the software for Liquid, run a node & peg-in bitcoin for LBTC completely anonymously. IIRC I spun up a node at one point but never did the on-chain swap. You can also exchange BTC for LBTC & (more recently) swap in & out via Lightning. I suspect the reason for on-chain peg-outs being only to verfied addresses is simply to mitigate the harm done by any possible withdrawal bug.

"Popularity wins" is the halmark of democracy. As a member of an intolerant minority I will work to prevent drivechain like changes the same way I did big blocks.

BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

Liquid is not KYC. The KYC is from the initial purchase of bitcoin. You can buy non-KYC and use it with Liquid, but there are no real benefits over just having non-KYC Bitcoin.

With a drivechain, you could enter a coinjoin with KYC and peg into Bit-RingSignature. There is absolutely no public knowledge of what happens after that, and then you peg out on L1 directly from the miners for non-KYC Bitcoin.

Drivechains are not a popularity contest because nobody is forced into or out of anything. If I want to use a zcash sidechain and you do not, then both individuals win. If I vote with my node to keep you away from drivechains, would that not be a democratic mindset?

There seems to be a huge push by the corporations to reject drivechains, even at the cost of splitting the chain. Funny that this happens soon after BlackRock is involved, and they already claim they may not choose the "real Bitcoin" in a chain split.

The only way to use a node to reject a MASF is to hard fork off of the longest timechain.

So I have to ask myself. Is hard forking to the safe and legal chain with BlackRock better, or keeping the real Bitcoin and making it P2P cash with a little shitcoinery?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Jeff Swann 2y ago

NO, there seems to be a huge propaganda push for adding drivechains. It's ridiculous. They've been around as a BS idea for a long time & they are being pushed like crazy all of the sudden lately.

Paul is completely dishonest in his presentation of the costs & benefits & he comes off skeezy as fuck both in talks & in person.

The default is always NO CHANGE. People defending the default are not the fucking propagandists or conspirators. Anyone presenting things otherwise is an enemy of Bitcoin.

There is no miner revenue emergency, there is no lack of viable scaling solutions, those are bullshit arguments from people spreading FUD.

BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

I’m pretty sure the talk of drivechains started with nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 gaining a bit of popularity, and massive amounts of people saying no. Michael Saylor even shared a video to millions of people that has verifiably false information. I’m getting a "trust the experts" vibe from all of this.

I agree the default should be no change, but change is happening and has to happen. So which direction do we want to go? The current plan has given us a bigger blocksize and monkee jpegs on L1, while Ross Ulbricht would still get his coins confiscated.

All of these features should be on an L2 drivechain, and L1 never needs to be touched again.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

Block sizes aren't changing. We have an L2 that can do those things. Ordinals didn't use L2 because ordinals were a social attack to push for changes to the base layer.

BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

SegWit increased the blocksize 4x and Taproot gave us monkee jpegs. If they were an attack, who merged Taproot and who’s paying the Bitcoin Core developers? Especially the handful of devs who have authority to merge code.

Bitcoin is a revolution to separate money from the state and destroy fiat. Does BlackRock and Michael Saylor really want to be a part of this? Or is it in their best interest to oppose this at all costs?

Jeff Swann 2y ago

Monkey jpgs on-chain were an unexpected side effect of base layer changes that were made to improve privacy & scaling. That's exactly why we should AVOID making MORE unnecessary changes & chasing other features until all the things we can do have been implemented & properly explored.

kidwarp 2y ago

It was not unexpected. It was planned from the get go with Segwit.

We fucked it up by not listening to Satoshi……

It’s already to late and now we’re suck with what looks to be the greedy miners coming up with ways to make the fee market worse.

Who funded lighting labs…..

Who made the push for Segwit…..

Why didn’t we just raise the block size like Satoshi intended?

The greedy miners

If I’m guessing right will try to make a smaller blocksize chain to raise the fees.

Miners are greedy.

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

Smaller blocksize actually makes it easier to run a node. So I am in favour of this tbh.

kidwarp 2y ago

This is a bad statement

Jeff Swann 2y ago

Comments like this are stupid & exhausting. You need to read The Blocksize War.

kidwarp 2y ago

Don’t need to I was around for it and seen what has happened since.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

An intelligent person on the losing side of a fight would want to investigate & find out why. But then again, the lack of desire to learn is often what makes people losers in the first place... 😐

kidwarp 2y ago

There was/is no fight.

I stated my opinion.

Like it or not.

I stand by it.

Like I said I was there for the block wars. Long before & I’m still here now stacking sats lmfao.

The only losers are the ones who think their opinion is the only one that matters.

We all like btc for our own reasons that’s why we’re here.

The blocksize war isn’t over by a long shot.

Why do you think we have l2,l3 etc cuz there’s an inherent issue with scaling on the base chain.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

Big blocks prevent decentralization. They prevent average users from independently auditing the system. If we had gigabyte blocks it still wouldn't make the base layer competitve with modern fiat payment networks & it would hand over the network to Google & Visa & the other corp monsters.

If only Visa sized corps have the capacity to run a node, then they can change the rules however they like. They'd neuter it & censor it & make Bitcoin one more tool of enslavement.

This is not my opinion, it's just a fact. Bitcoin is what the economically active nodes say it is. If there are only a few nodes, then we have just recreated the Fed banks & their collusion would change everything in their own favor at user expense.

Big blocks cannot ever solve the scaling problem, but they could destroy Bitcoin. Scale has to be achieved via tech that adds an order of magnitude to the number of txns without compromising the ability for average users to audit the system. The only way to do this is with layers like Lightning, which is already a fantastic leap forward & it still has lots of room for growth & improvement.

techfeudalist 2y ago

This is so obvious it hurts. I can’t believe we’re still discussing big blocks and bitcoin can’t scale.

Not problems:

+ scaling

+ security budget

+ lack of shitcoinery features

Actual problem: self custody

+ normies are scared of losing keys

+ no private inheritance

techfeudalist 2y ago

Bitcoin isn’t broken. Be patient and play the long game. If you’re sad and angry, get outside and relax.

kidwarp 2y ago

Did I say it was broken?

I’ve probably been in the game longer then you.

I’m actually very happy and touch grass all the time.

techfeudalist 2y ago

“We fucked it up by not listening to Satoshi……

It’s already to late and now we’re suck…”

Yes, you said we fucked it up and now it’s too late. We didn’t and it’s not.

kidwarp 2y ago

Correct fucked up not broken. Fixes can be made.

Think 100y out.

Think 1000y out.

Are we making the right choices for now?

Are we making choices for 100y from now?

Are we making choices for 1000y from now?

Are we here to get rich or change the world for the better?

techfeudalist 2y ago

When someone says something is “too late” and “we’re stuck”, I interpret that as meaning it can’t be fixed. Thanks for clarifying.

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

We are fucking up by not allowing for sidechain scaling.

We could oassufy layer 1.

Let’s devs experiments and build cool shit on layer 2z

Stopping all this arguing and politics. Bitcoin is about freedom. We should need to ask for permission on how we wish to use our bitcoin.

🫂 ❤️💕

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

We should *not need to ask permission to use our bitcoin.

SMS 2y ago

You mean #echash?

Sit the fuck down you deviant

kidwarp 2y ago

I fucking love everything about nostr bitcoin and all ya Mfers.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

You cannot change Bitcoin. But you can use it however you wish.

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

I cant but miners can soft fork

Jeff Swann 2y ago

Not if the users that pay them reject their blocks

( -_-) 2y ago

The users would have no reason to reject them, soft fork is within the current rules.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

It changes the incentives of the network. And Paul being the piece of shit that he is knows there isn't network support so he is trying to go around users & appeal to miners directly. He is also screwing with precedents for updating the network which puts miners & users at odds & sews division. This whole thing is an attack purpetrated by a skeezy mf.

( -_-) 2y ago

My point is, my node wouldn't reject the blocks. So what you're talking about is users hard forking out Paul's changes?

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

Yeh it’s funny. Which token will the hard forkers use?

Bitcoin with Drivechain will be using BTC.

BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

Paul’s demeanor was a concern for me too, especially talking about a MASF and secret softforks.

I’ve listened to hours of Paul talking, and determined he is a very frustrated nerd. He has even compared Bitcoin code to Dragon Ball Z 😂

Paul never had any intention to do a "secret softfork". He told everyone this is possible, and nobody knew before he said it. The dubious thing would be to do it in secret.

I’ve come to realized a MASF is a sort of check on powers. Right now, if thousands of people want drivechains, we’re stuck with the Core developers to decide what philosophy Bitcoin should follow. Did you know Taproot was implemented with something called a "Speedy Trial"? Nobody complained about that, because the "experts" said it would be fine.

Softforks cannot kill Bitcoin. This is not something we should be concerned with. If Bitcoin is that fragile, then in the future we could be one softfork away from destroying the economy. Softforks are backwards compatible and give you the freedom to opt-out, which is the individual liberty Bitcoin provides.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

There was a ton of debate over speedy trial & a bunch of people unhappy about it.

Ike 2y ago

"Class of 2020 here to fix bitcoin" embarrassing takes starter pack

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

Studied from the greats like Adam Back, Gregory maxwell, Hal finney and satoshi who were all advocates for sidechain scaling.

techfeudalist 2y ago

Nothing wrong with sidechains. As you continue your studies, you’ll learn how Adam built a sidechain using a separate federation.

Go build your sidechain. Just don’t propose to hack bitcoin or give miners powers they don’t currently have.

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

Liquid is not a real sidechain because it’s federated. Even Adam Back and Sergio Lerner (inventor of the Rootstock/RSK sidechain) will admit this.

Real sidechains work peer-2-peer.

No gatekeeper. No middle men. Are merged mined with the parent chain. Fees go to those who provide the proof of work for executing the sidechain transactions not unknown federation members who can collude to steal your funds.

techfeudalist 2y ago

It seems clear to me that both drivechains and liquid use a federation. The mechanics are different but in both cases there is a group that has the power to validate transactions and who can collude and steal funds. There is no free lunch.

When you set up your sidechain you can ask the big mining companies to be in your private federation. If you trust them as drivechain validators, you should trust them as your sidechain validators. No need to hack bitcoin and change the incentives of the core protocol.

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

Miners can steal from lightning a channel as well. But nobody cares about that.

Only because d”rivechains are shitcoins 👿 ”

kidwarp 2y ago

Are bch and bsv mergers mined? If not why?

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

I don’t think so.

Namecoin was the first merged mined altcoin.

Then Rootstock followed.

I am pretty sure litecoin also allows for merge mining with dogecoin.

I will look into Sergio Lerners old blogpost. He’s dives deep into history of merge mining blockchains.

kidwarp 2y ago

Ugh merged mining happened so long ago now lol feels like forever.

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

https://twitter.com/i/status/1705307600013705592

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

https://medium.com/iovlabs-innovation-stories/modern-merge-mining-f294e45101a0

Narwhal Tacos 2y ago

People who don’t mine need to stop assuming they know what “miners” will or won’t do.

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

Luke Dash Jr was paid by LayerTwo Labs to write a draft BIP300 Pull Request at the end of August to Bitcoin Core.

Thats when the discussions/debates started happening.

Jeff Swann 2y ago

Who is behind L2Labs & why?

Sovereign Matt 2y ago

Paul Stzorc is the CEO, formed the company in late 2022 and raised money $3 million to push bip forward.

That’s all I know.

I do know $3 million is not a lot of money for a modern day tech startup. Eth projects and lightning projects raise tens to hundreds Million often. Stacks raise $150 million in 2022 marketing themselves as bitcoin financial layer lol.