What are your thoughts on nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 ‘s argument that Drive Chain is necessary to scale bitcoin to the masses?
Discussion
While I may not share the same viewpoint as him, as a non-developer, I believe that #Bitcoin should primarily serve as a secure store of value, akin to a savings account. For day-to-day transactions, it seems practical to utilize centralized services such as CashApp or Strike as a checking account alternative. The key is to embrace #Bitcoin’s stability and reliability, and avoid unnecessary attempts to change its core principles. Let’s remain humble and continue to stack sats for the future.
I disagree
Seems to be correct... So necessary only if we considered it as a foretaste of ‘Layer 3’...
Drivechain doesnt scale Bitcoin. It enables sidechains constrained by miners and tokens on one Drivechain are not compatible with another. This is the same fundamental limiting factor of Fedimint and Ark and other sidechains like Liquid. Moving from one to another to transact takes a minimum of 2 onchain tx or some form of atomic swap or trusted intermediary
Not true
Which part do you disagree with
Drivechain tokens could be cross compatible
It can be with atomic swaps or a trusted intermediary, neither of which exist today. There may be other solutions as well, but the inherent drive chain design does not address and by default each side chain via drive chain is its own encumbered token.
As long as you recognize they can be.
Lighting has a drive chain port called thunder, so a txn could never even see main
That just allows sending tokens of that type through a lightning network
Wrong
I know you are not asking me, but
I don't think the "masses" will ever care about bitcoin.
That was not my point at all, but I yes, I support Drivechain, so whatever, be my guest and misrepresent what I said.
Apologies, it wasn’t my intent to misrepresent your thesis. My understanding from your article “The Place of Drivechain in Bitcoin’s Future” was that:
Bitcoin needs mass adoption otherwise it will die. And “without Drivechain, Bitcoin will be a fragile success in the best case and dead in the worst case scenario.”
Anyway, even though I don’t have the technical chops to know the right way to scale, I appreciate the different points of view and ways to attack the problem. Build on brother 🤛
OK, yes, that is better.
I don't think you need to have technical chops to be able to understand Drivechain, it is just a game-theoretical construct that makes Bitcoin much better if it works, not worse at all if it doesn't.
Maybe you need some technical chops to understand that all other scaling methods that rely on pure cryptography and Bitcoin script have horrible tradeoffs. Not saying they shouldn't be tried, everything has its place, but it won't get better than Lightning -- which is not great.
And if applied, introducing unintended consequences. The risk is higher then the reward applying drivechain. Ordinals was not seen coming from implementing sigwit and taproot . If it is a great idea, let it be tested on litecoin.
Drivechain is less intrusive than taproot.
You actually dont know that. Usually when people are this confident, it bits them in the ass. If its actually worth it. It should be tested over a fork of bitcoin. Otherwise its just a risk or an attack. The open market already shows people dont want care about shitcoin assets. Rootstock and liquid have no demand. Building off lightning is the logical step
Lightning on drivechain, Thunder.