If I had to steelman the reverse:

Basically all of our sidechain designs currently amount to this same thing. So a federated sidechain is a voting system too, it’s just permissioned. So you can know exactly who the voters are. So in that sense DC has some benefits and some drawbacks. DC is actually a novel way to accomplish this by using enormous security infrastructure that already exists, and could be a great option in the toolset for scaling.

My problem is that any changes at all can obviously have unintended consequences (cough* inscriptions *cough*). And messing with miner incentives/profitability - even in a way that seems beneficial at first glance - is extremely dangerous territory. So I’m deeply skeptical that if this isn’t some vastly superior system, with its own set of potential problems, that messes with miner incentives — where we already have an uphill battle to make them further decentralized — that it will have the momentum necessary to get a soft fork through.

Still open to all of this. But I don’t yet see a clear “ok this is obviously and vastly better to have, than to not have.”

Nope not at all.

#Bitcoin is beautiful because its keys or GFY.

Any "voting" is fucking the same as " staking " but the thing here is the ones that " staked" into the sidechain dont get to decide " what happened" outside of bitcoin the miners get to vote and theyll vote for whatever pays them the most regardless of what is " truth"

Id rather not introduce voting at all simply because if we introduce some human intervention mechanism into #bitcoin i can assure you it WILL be used as we dumb humans can not and will not refrain from using it.

The arguments I see on Twitter against drive chains are terrible.

It appears to me most folks on Twitter seem to favor any custodian as long as they aren't miners because it might break the incentive structure of bitcoin. The current state of Lightning is tending towards centralization because it isn't easy maintaining/running a node .

The semi/self custodial solutions would have to compete with the custodial ones and beat them in services offered to gain any considerable traction. It is way easier to self custody Bitcoin onchain than on lightning today.

Other scaling approaches needs to be on the table at this point. There would obviously be tradeoffs but that is the nature of L2s. If there were no tradeoffs, it would already be in L1. Alternatively the improvements lightning needs should be on the table. But there seems to be a lot of disdain for soft forks which I think mostly is as a result of ordinals.

The worst arguments I've heard is that it enables shitcoin on L1.

I thought, when nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev noted that each additional chain would require a soft fork, that eventually miners and side chains could guild togethere to make a political barrier to entry by guild protectionism. Possibility?