Replying to Avatar ₿lack Swan

And therein lies the problem. I’m not opposed to drivechains conceptually, but I believe it needs to be implemented trustlessly or it’s just an epic rug waiting to happen.

You could argue that the risks are known, so the amount of value locked in a drivechain reflects both the utility and the inherent risk of theft, and you might be right.

Personally though, I can’t support something I see as fundamentally flawed.
Avatar
j 2y ago

Yes that's right. The risk is the tradeoff made to allow drivechains to scale better than lightning.

You are wrong to think there is a flaw. Every second layer has tradeoffs. You sound like bsv people that say lightning is "fundementally flawed" because it requires wallets to be hot, or peers to be online to receive, or inbound liquidity.

The fact is all layer twos will have tradeoffs.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
₿lack Swan 2y ago

But they don’t allow Bitcoin to be stolen on the base layer, or further empower the miners.

Do we need a layer 2 for privacy, or do we need to improve privacy at the base layer? Certainly. But, based on my interactions with others, that is the only use case the majority of users support.

Without knowing all of the second and third order affects, I still believe the benefits don’t justify the risks.

Agree to disagree 🙏🏻

Avatar
j 2y ago

Seems the goal posts just keep shifting 🤔

Anyway, yes agree to disagree.