Nostr Web Client

My current stance on #BIP300 and #BIP301 for #Drivechains is that I’m not convinced this is the “best way” to achieve “blind” escrow and Blond-Merge-Mining.

I don’t really care if people want to run drivechains; Bitcoin is freedom money so they probably should be able to, even if I and others think it’s dumb.

But it should probably be a net-gain for Bitcoin and have more uses than one

We only have so many NOPs left to soft-fork with, every new thing needing it’s own specific soft-fork isn’t sustainable

CISC vs RISC

We can’t really anticipate all possible transaction types and have templates for them all, which is why Bitcoin script exists, to provide powerful composable primitives that enable as many different uses as possible

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

1F52B 2y ago

Also very unconvinced by the BIPs that either will even work, irrespective of whether they’re good ideas or not

256 sidechain limit is dumb, not nearly enough

Bitcoin nodes should know as little as possible about sidechain, keeping lists and hashrate escrows seems pretty non-ideal

New messages for sidechain proposal and BMM request would surely lead to massive node p2p traffic, swamping the network (how do you know what is and isn’t spam if it’s supposed to be blind? You can’t?)

1F52B 2y ago

Also the proposed BIPs give undue privileges to miners to propose new side chains and accept merge-mines. Means miners that want sidechain fees would have to expose themselves to receive BMM requests (bad and unfair for anon and private miners) and means users need a miner to directly agree/work with them to get a sidechain going and to take their merge mine requests