Why TF Paul Sztorc spamming Twitter and Super Testnet taking his side without anyone making a compelling case?
Not only is it not the "only way", it doesn't even seem like it's the best way.
Are people just trying to slide in BIP300 with CAT and CTV like it's related and innocuous?
Please take a minute to make it clear what you think is the way to scale Bitcoin.
Thoughts in the sub-notes
Drive chains could have some utility for privacy, but I think the anonymity set would be too low. Paul acts like people would replace their Monero with Monero-on-Bitcoin. There is ZERO chance of that. Ditto for any other existing coin. BCH on Bitcoin? I don't think so. Ethereum? LOL.
Drive chains would be additional revenue for miners, where they are given control over a new shitcoin circus. Maybe that's fine-- but it doesn't scale Bitcoin.
Maybe Paul is right that not everyone needs unilateral exit, but no one is going to use a chain that miners can just "take away". Miners won't have rugging powers, but they will have extortion powers.
I'm (very cautiously) optimistic about Ark, Spiderchain, and some covenants. I think an ideal solution would be built utilizing lightning. It's possible scaling won't be achieved for another 15 years, that doesn't mean in the meantime we should enable fuckery that would be difficult to undo.
In fairness to Paul, Adam Back doesn't seem totally against drivechains (last I heard), and I don't consider Adam to be rash or unintelligent.
So maybe they can play with Drivechains on Liquid?
Is Shinobi on Nostr?
You have too many opinions to someone who doesn't even know what Drivechain is or can't write the name of the thing correctly. "Drivechains on Liquid" makes no sense. Saying that Drivechain is "shitcoins" makes no sense. Apparently you have "heard" some things and rushed to an opinion.
Shinobi is not on Nostr because he thinks that if you use the same private key many times that allows an attacker to figure out your private key from the signatures alone.
I'm admittedly not the sharpest surgeon in the rocket factory, but I think it's up to the proponents of a proposal to advocate their position cohesively and honestly. Paul seems desperate and mean. I feel bad for him, but the BIPs are old at this point, and everyone is working on something else, having dismissed Drivechains some time ago.
I'm not inherently against merged mining, and I don't think Drivechains are a horrible idea, but I'm 100% sure if you create a new way to make money from Bitcoin, it will be exploited and turn into a shit show. All I want is Bitcoin to scale. Maybe I lack the imagination to see how drivechains scale Bitcoin, but I wouldn't personally approve or use a drive chain as I understand them. I'm open to having my mind changed.
Liquid is a multisig pretending to be a sidechain. 15 people control your coins.
Drivechains are sidechains, chosen by 51% hashrate. They are a promise from the miners that they support these sidechains and will not destroy them in 10 minutes.
There is no reason to put sidechain technology on a fake sidechain and see how it does.
If you want to peg out of Liquid, and the Liquid federation wants to give you your Bitcoin, but 51% of miners do not want you to have your coins, they can censor you. They can censor lightning. They can kill every L2, including drivechains.
BIP300 recognizes this, so it does two things to protect itself:
1. Massive fees to miners. Why would miners kill something that always pays them? They are incentivized to protect the sidechains, make them better, and continue mining L1.
2. Six month peg out. This gives us six months to see if the miners are misbehaving, with a constant warning displayed to the world every 10 minutes.
If using a second layer to Bitcoin is its eventual future for the masses, then there is nothing close to drivechains.
BitVM has similar issues, though it’s MUCH better than lightning, and that is why Super Testnet and Robin still support BIP300.
