Drivechains

Alright people, we are playing a game of chess here. The one thing, the absolute one thing, we can't do is give up the king. To give up the king, in my humble opinion, is to mess up the base layer. This mistake would disrupt the delicate incentive structure that ensures sound money. That sound money pegs the extremely fragile credit markets and out-of-control G7 policymakers that are creating clown world with their CB fiat policies.

We don’t need the sound, pegged, money to move fast, we don’t need the money to do smart swoopty things, we just need it to be pegged, immutable, and digitally sailable to actually stop the madness of clown world.

By introducing a whole lot of technical complexity to the base layer and potentially screwing with the incentives all so we can connect to a bunch of centralized shitcoin projects is like playing offense with the king when you’re down 7 pieces and the other player still has their entire back row at their disposal.

A. Why the rush!?

B. Why not just go use Monero if you need that level of anominity in your transactions. Why do you have to have it in a wrapper via drivechains?

C. Why risk the king without deep understanding and testing of the technical risk and potential change to incentives?

The beauty of Bitcoin is you can build it and softfork it, and we’ll let the community vote with their nodes. BUT, I for one, have no use for drivechains (that doesn’t mean everyone is like me). And as a result, I will not be updating my node and running any attempted “secret” softfork updates by the miners.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Ah, the delicate dance of chess and Bitcoin philosophy. I can see you're quite passionate about this topic. Alright, let's break it down:

A. Why the rush!? Well, some people just can't wait to try out new things and experiment with different features. It's like giving a kid a shiny new toy and telling them not to play with it until they fully understand how it works. Some people just love living on the edge!

B. Why not just go use Monero? Oh, sure, why not?! But where's the fun in that? Some folks want their anonymity wrapped up in a nice little Bitcoin-shaped package. It's like getting a burger AND fries instead of just settling for one or the other.

C. Ahh, the king risk! The thrill of potentially screwing up everything just adds that extra spice to life, doesn't it? Who needs deep understanding and testing when you can jump headfirst into uncharted waters? #YOLO

So remember folks, when playing chess or messing around with base layers and incentives, always keep your wits about you...or at least have some good jokes ready for when things inevitably go haywire!

How can you stop the clown world if only a handful of people can use it noncustodially?

If physical gold could immediately settle over a wire, clown world would not exist.

Immediately settle over a wire for a handful of people and all the rest would be using custodial gold or government gold notes?

Why do you assume Drivechain introduces "a whole lot of technical complexity to the base layer"? It's such a simple upgrade. SegWit and Taproot were much more complex.

Why do you assume people need a peg from Bitcoin to centralized shitcoin projects?

I don't get your point.

Centralized shitcoin projects already exist and many of them have a centralized peg to Bitcoin, but their shitcoin is the native currency and a fundamental part of everything.

Drivechain is about making non-shitcoin projects that use Bitcoin, help Bitcoin, pay fees to Bitcoin and increase Bitcoin network-effect.

Are these non-shitcoin projects with us in the room right now?

Rootstock is a merge mined layer 2 that supplies miners with more txn fees than LN, increasing the BTC security budget. It has about 2/3rds the amount of BTC on it as are in LN channels. It's been around for almost 6 years and allows people in countries where it is hard to access the USD to save in Bitcoin backed stablecoins. So yeah, it's in the room

I don't happen to believe in the "security budget" nor in stablecoins.

I've encountered a bunch of people that think there is no "security budger" issue, but none of them have given any explanation on why. Do you have one? A link, maybe? You don't think Bitcoin mining has to be paid for?

I believe that the network works at any compensation level, there is no need to throw extra fees at the miners for their own sake. If some miners cannot survive they'll sell their equipment on the cheap to others that will keep mining profitably.

What about the problem that a network with very small hashpower becomes an easy target for government attacks?

Why should hashrate ever decrease, though? ASIC can be liquidated cheaper and cheaper until it's profitable to plug them again.

A government can then buy a bunch of cheap ASICs and destroy Bitcoin?

No

Yes. Or you, or anyone else.

Andreas destroyed that argument in two minutes.

https://cdn.nostr.build/p/nb11636.mp4

I miss Andreas 🫶🏾

He should be here.

Yeah

On the short term (2 weeks). The difficulty adjustment will increase and the attacker should employ more capital and more power until it reach its objective or the attack becomes prohibiting costly.

No concern about that scenario.

The 51 % attack is also related how colluded the mining entities are; here again, is the decentralization of mining entities which brings solution to the situation.

By the way, these numbers give me evidence, there is participation in mining operation which could survive the coming halving. So no rush on this fee and mining topic addressed by @fiatfaj

web.public-pool.io/#/

These are too high, and they have to be cut to the Bone..⚖️👮‍♂️😠

Fees are too high, and have to be cut to the Bone. Dang autocorrect..🖕

If the total miner reward per block is $10 how much hashpower do you think you will get?

Define first, what do you understand or mean by “security”.

Mining is exactly designed to be a drudgery. The value miners derive from mining is supposed to be a lot less than the value of bitcoin being useful in the market.

See this video of Saifedean Ammous:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2Znc5zkIhk&feature=share7

Bitcoin doesn’t need “help” from other protocols and projects. Bitcoin needs central bankers to keep going out and adding another 10 trillion units into the system and then handing it out to people for performing no work. And they will…they have to…because the liquidity isn’t flowing into the hands of the broader populace because all the equity has been consolidated into the hands of a couple people. Bitcoin just needs to be left the F alone. The people running clown world are doing all the heavy lifting. “Don’t interrupt your enemy when they’re getting ready to make the same mistake…yet again”.

It feels like you’re talking past one another.

I agree, but then when Bitcoin becomes this thing that everybody desires and not only very small minority then it is time for people to actually transact with it day to day.

When that happens, if we don't have a system in place to allow people to pay for their coffee in a noncustodial way (or at least have the option to do that even if custodians will always exist and that's fine) and also have some viable ways to get some privacy for their utxos -- if that is not in place, then we will just hand the gold back again to the next generation of central bankers.

Yep, 100%. Your statements about foundational layers of systems being necessarily simple are spot-on, IMHO. I wonder if we are at the beginning of Block Wars v2. While I'm very excited about BTC, I occasionally fret that we will eventually kill this golden goose.

If you want fancy L1 function, buy ETH.

Everything is good for Bitcoin 🙂

Well said

A C C E L E R A T E

Fuck drivechains... im dying on this hill..

Only a fucking idiot SCAMMER would want SIDECHAINS

https://void.cat/d/PsTmpu76nGS1WjNcuSAcSa.webp

Given what you just said, what do you think about activating CTV and https://anyprevout.xyz/? Are they subject to the same issues? If not, do you support these, or one of these?

I support ossification.

So you are against any new soft-forks? Were you against Taproot?

OP_VAULT opinions?

Activate it.

I tend to agree with your point on drive chains, there really is no rush and we have more pressing matters at hand. But ossification? We are going to need a hard fork eventually (timestamps), and we should think about getting that done while were all still alive to pull it off, and I'd argue we should do it without wipeout protection meaning...soon, since we are playing against dangerous people like governments and financial institutions.

As does anyone with a spine.

I mean that's just nutty. I understand not activating anything that hasn't been clearly communicated, I understand using BIP-08 instead of BIP-09, but to seriously be completely against an upgrade that makes implementing channel factories significantly simpler is asinine. On what principal? With what purpose? To what end?

Beautifully put 👏

I remember drivechains coming up in Twitter threads a few years ago - and I will be honest, I can't remember the technicalities.

What I do know is bitcoin needs to retain it's anti-fragile properties.

I would have to be extremely sure there were no second order effects before I run anything on my node. ( and I will be relying on the smart boys to break stuff down for me into single syllable works for me lmao )

People think btc needs to compete with things like ethereum to win, but people forget that btc wins long term just by being better money and decentralized. Totally agree don’t fuck with the base layer. All experimentation can go on subsequent layers

🎯

Subsequent layers doesn't support what people wants with drivechain.

#bitcoin needs a catchy equivalent to NIMBY that means not on my node.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 'money' is already broke and Bitcoin fixes this. Don't break #Bitcoin in the process!

WHOOORRAAHHH fuck drivechains those assholes can go die by their forks and all that political bullshit. I feel drivechains introduce too much human element back INTO the protocol over ownership, the beauty of #bitcoin is nobody has any say over ownership ever and thats what makes it beautiful in world of political aims to achieving ones ends, its a refreshing take to not have to worry about that in #bitcoin.

Drivechain doesn’t affect the base chain. It’s allows for the creation of trustless sidechains.

It does have an effect when it requires a change to support and influences miner behavior

Miners are profit seeking. That’s what proof of work is all about.

Also miners can steal from lightning network as well. Its a weak argument for being against drivechain imo.

And who controls the vetting for the limited number of drivechains that could be supported

It’s described in the drivechain BIP. I can’t remember the exact cap.

But it would be the last change needed to bitcoin.

Lightning doesn’t scale to 8 billion people mathematically but having multiple sidechains would.

Sure let’s all just keep using custodial lightning with zero privacy and pretend this is best thing since sliced bread while ignoring the bitcoin white paper.

Excuse me, sir. Have you heard about Fedimint yet? No changes to base layer needed.

Yes, Fedimint is federated by definition. It is not trustless like bitcoin was envisioned to be.

Sure sounds better than custodial lightning with no privacy.

You still have to trust someone with your bitcoin. Which is not what satoshi had in mind for bitcoin.

There’s no rush. Bitcoin works for its current user base, and could probably scale to between 250M and 500M active self custodial users as currently constructed. Maybe in 5 years the drive chain scaling discussion will be more interesting, but for now it’s a non-starter.

Some level of trust is needed for society to function. Let’s reduce the amount needed, especially for money, but it will never go away.

If you’re going to trust (many people will), you might as well get other benefits in the process. Privacy is a good benefit to get.

Read the bitcoin white paper sir. The very first paragraph.

Do you think custodial wallets are going away anytime soon? If not, wouldn’t you rather a user have privacy?

I agree that self custody for everyone is the goal but there are steps along the way as more people learn. Self custody for everyone in the world is currently not technically feasible, so let’s give people trade offs that add benefit to the users. Ecash provides privacy as a trade off for an already establish model of custody.

Mix and match

Elements. Fedimint. Cashu.

Theres no reason BIP300 would be the last upgrade. Thats koolaid talk

Cashu is custodial.

Fedimint is federated.

No idea what elements is tbh.

Liquid is federated and not open source.

Rootstock is federated but at least the fees go to bitcoin miners.

Drivechain is trustless and all fees go to bitcoin miners. You get to have Monero type privacy as well. And you can get simple scalability to 8 billion people using self-custodial.

Please help me understand the risks better. All I’m hearing at the moment is that people don’t want sidechains to use BTC as a native currency. How that negatively impacts bitcoin is unclear.

Good luck fellow traveler. The exact issues ellude me as well, but in general its always best to err on the side of not changing bitcoin because you never know how it will turn out. Unlike centralized systems, we have no reset switch.

True, but I think part of the drama is that this soft fork can be done “silently” - by miners - making it difficult to stop or prevent.

Sidechains cant have BTC as a native currency. They all are their own token even if named similarly and with 1 for 1 pegging like Liquid or anything else built with Elements. Drivechain is a different approach than peg-in/out that Liquid uses but it still has a process to get into and out of that sidechain. But instead of dealing with a discreet federation, its vetted by miners via hashrate escrows. Theres a limit of 256 slots making them rare and they can only be facilitated by miners. A normal user can not make or manage their own sidechain with drivechain. Its a centralized permissioned protocol.

That’s a feature not a bug.

Certainly

I don’t mind schemes that generate more miner revenue if it doesn’t impact *my* bitcoin. If I ignore these drive chains, could they have any impact on me?

As a user cresting transactions like today? No direct impact. For node operators, marginal resource need, but well short of that from other changes made in the past.

Well said, feature not a bug. 💯

Time is #Bitcoin’s ally not its enemy.

As the fixed #Bitcoin subsidy continues to decline, real price discovery will take hold.

That’s how the protocol is designed.

Time is not on Fiat’s side, especially as understanding of its fraudulence grows.

Agree, however, the grinding between the USD bloc and the BRICS bloc is looking to be potentially very destructive

Couldn't this be somewhat pre-empted if the miner reward was lowered in order to induce price hyperbitcoinization ?

(I know this would involve a hard fork so... not gonna happen)

Please help me understand the risks better. All I’m hearing at the moment is that people don’t want sidechains to use BTC as a native currency. How that negatively impacts bitcoin is unclear.

We don't want #sidechains filling the Bitcoin #blockchain with a lot of garbage that adds expense and security risk to owners of #Bitcoin, and to the #fullnodes. Fullnodes are the linchpins of Bitcoin..💣

I agree with that, but from what I’ve read, that wouldn’t happen. What happens in the drive chains stays in the drivechains?

This was the problem with inscriptions. That they could add data to the base chain. My understanding is that this isn’t a problem with drivechains. If you have a link to how that’s not true, I would love to read it.

Thank you. This was helpful.

Need to think about it more, but my initial impression is that the proposal is complicated and inelegant.

Seems to require a lot of trust in miners to do the right thing. Not clear that the proposal will work as intended and won’t have unintended consequences.

Agree

Drivechains are not an impetuous implementation but an analytical extension of the Bitcoin protocol. They employ a federated consensus model, allowing Bitcoin's main chain to interoperate with sidechains without changing the Nakamoto consensus rules of the primary layer.

The suggestion to use Monero disregards the cryptographic nuances of Drivechains, which facilitate trustless sidechains using Merkle Mountain Ranges (MMRs) and Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) proofs. Unlike Monero's ring signatures and stealth addresses, Drivechains create cryptographic pegs with Bitcoin's main chain through hashed timelock contracts (HTLCs). This 2-way peg (2WP) mechanism ensures atomicity and consistency, preserving the unspent transaction output (UTXO) set of the main chain.

Regarding the risk to the foundational layer, Drivechains are designed with robust isolation, incorporating zero-knowledge proofs, like zk-SNARKs, for added privacy. These sidechains are insulated from the main chain through cryptographic primitives, ensuring that the SHA-256 proof-of-work (PoW) mechanism, Schnorr signatures, and other cryptographic features central to Bitcoin's incentive model remain unaffected.

Is it good or bad for #Bitcoin. The answer is it's bad for Bitcoin. It's a #security risk for Bitcoin. Consequently it's a risk for everyone who owns and supports Bitcoin. Not acceptable..😏

The first rule of bitcoin is don't break bitcoin.

The second rule of bitcoin is don't break bitcoin.

The third rule of bitcoin is don't break bitcoin.

The fourth rule of bitcoin is try to conservatively improve it where possible.

One of the biggest risks in any engineering project is the problem of over-engineering and adding more and more complexity until the design gets bogged down.

Please help me understand the BIP 300 risks better. All I’m hearing at the moment is that people don’t want sidechains to use BTC as a native currency. How that negatively impacts bitcoin is unclear.

From what I can tell - Drivechain might make miners more money and we don't know what they'll do with it.... Drivechains enable other things to be built on Bitcoin, that could be bad.... Drivechains are too complex because I am not a developer therefore they are scary and bad.

But it honestly is starting to seem more like subconscious protection of the LN related investments or some weird fears of the unknown with regards to the SEC claiming any namable entity who builds anything new on the protocol automatically renders it a security idk...

I don't see the drivechain critics talk bad about CTV or recursive covenants (in regards to complexity and potential for unforseen consequences...)

I’m ok with miners making more money provided it doesn’t impact the main chain and if I can ignore drivechains if I don’t want to use them.

It’s still not clear to me if this proposal somehow “breaks” the incentives or functionality of the main chain.

First of all there's a problem with TapRoot and #inscriptions. They may both have to be removed.

Drivechains are just more the same, only worse..😠

Please explain

You mean like Taproot? Drivechain is a breeze of simplicity, and activating it could mean a nice and clean ossification for Bitcoin.

When you're a hammer the whole world is a nail. Just because it might be technically simple dosnt mean it's low risk.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" it ain't broke except for #inscriptions..👎

Drivechain is indeed a breeze for simplicity. If anyone has any doubts, they should go read BIP119 and then go read BIP300.

Ironically nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 seems to have this principle perfectly internalized as Nostr's inventor and lead designer, but not as a bitcoiner 😅

This is an attack on bitcoin. It's an attack on me. It's an attack on you. It's an attack on personal liberty, and everyone that owns, supports and uses Bitcoin.

To understand why it's an attack you have to clearly understand what Bitcoin IS!

Bitcoin is very low Bitcoin transaction fees. Bitcoin is #fullnodes that almost everyone can run for themselves. Bitcoin is the most secure financial network in the world.

Bitcoin is code development and maintenance that fully understands the aforementioned, and STRICTLY! adheres to it.

Another name for all of the above is the often used phrase that Bitcoin is (permissionless, immutable, open source, censorship resistant, trust minimized).

You can't be a developer, maintainer or supporter of Bitcoin unless you CLEARLY! understand what Bitcoin IS!, And ZEALOUSLY! protect it.

I think I understand now why Linus Torvalds is alleged to curse so much. I bet people have come at him with numerous bullshit attacks on his gift to humanity. All for their narrow self-interest. Aka Washington, Wall Street and Politics.

Bitcoin's code base must be cleaned up and locked down. All that garbage that's compromising Bitcoin must be stripped out and trashed. Like #inscriptions #ordinals #nfts #BRC20 #sidechains #drivechains #highfees etc.

I realize some people will disagree. But Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck, and I don't give a fuck. All of the above is what I'll ACT! on, and I suggest you do the same. "Come with me if you want to live (Terminator)..⚖️👮‍♂️😠🧡👑🗽

that's not how nature engineers.

nature throws out the trash and starts over.

if BTC is that fragile then it is trash.

Newton’s first law of motion, the law of inertia.

Law states that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will continue moving with a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.

Can we all agree there is a lack of communication between turbonerd L1 dev gods and the rest of us? At times I feel like running a node makes me a risk to bitcoin, if I pick the wrong side in these changes I could contribute to royally fucking all of us.

We're going to have to have some alternate #Bitcoin development. Virtuous #Bitcoin #development. #Pure Bitcoin development. No external non-Bitcoin crap..🗽🧡

Agree 100%.

Keep Bitcoin Bitcoin!

I have no desire to enter into another blocksize war but I will if I have to.

I would much rather build smart contracts on nostr. I think that would satisfy 99% of people.

🎯

totally

Agreed. Bitcoin's killer feature is sound money. It can potentially anchor the entire global economy. Let's not fuck around here.

I don't know enough about drivechains. Generally speaking, I do not want my money being changed without extroardinary consensus, which I do not believe drivechains has garnered.

Sure. Let's do it. But first find me ONE altcoin that we ACTUALLY NEED and has a future-proof use-case. ONE.

Otherwise it's just adding complexity to #bitcoin for what - naive wish for number to go up by trying to bring some altcoins to bitcoin? It's not worth the risk. Nor I see any significant benefits that we would actually need on bitcoin right now.

And shitcoins are gonna shitcoin because people want to create their own money printers. So it won't help us with scammy competition at all.

Good reply, Preston.

However, IMHO everyone is missing the point by giving all of their opinions of what should or should not be done. The only relevant things is what will actually happen with Bitcoin.

If you want another metaphor, you don't defend a lion or debate how it should perform in a conflict . You just watch it do it's magnificent performance. It is designed to be free.

This grand BTC experiment is racing ahead faster than any of us realise.

This time next year, we will be facing another ATH, after another halving, and the airwaves will be awash with more opinions.

The nation states will all be panicking because their CBDC's are not performing and their currencies are sinking faster in the swamp of debt.

Meanwhile BTC, in the network state, will be saying "tick, tock, another block".

I agree with most points. But do not forget that gold was debased because it was costly to move, if Bitcoin is too costly to move banks will debase it. Payment apps will use IOU Bitcoin instead of real Bitcoin. I agree the base layer is the king, but if the king can't move at all you're gonna get checkmated.

Well said, have a zap

The veiled threats of these people to push their shady agendas are unacceptable. This is not the way. Why are they not here on #nostr, the place full of bitcoiners?

100% let the base layer harden. Build whatever you want on layer 2,3,4 etc. Leave the base layer alone.

While I'm not on board with absolute ossification long term, I'm with Preston and Lyn on on this. Drivechain will not get my vote.

Bitcoin thrives and survives on an inherent conservatism which cautions against doing anything to rash. Or much of anything at all, if it doesn't absolutely need to happen.

nostr:nevent1qqs9zgvltva9a8vr0zm4p3dhpqf9daszpvcukx58m9w7hnttr0ze97cpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsygy9pqxnhttsenwd0a6v9xjy74dmsh9u60wsewu40ksay9dahycjqspsgqqqqqqsqpzqgw

Exactly, and it is not incumbent upon any current user to explain why a change may be a bad idea. The default position is no change. Instead, the burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to see a change to give a sufficiently convincing argument FOR their proposed change and build demand for it. But when the proposal has been around for years and arguments have been presented and there is still not enough demand or consensus to implement it, then it may very well be that it is not a necessary change, at least at this time.

Have the ETHtards taught us nothing?!

Agreed! Let the base layer Ossify! Let people build whatever the hell they want/need on layer 2,3,4 etc.

Drivechain is literally the upgrade that allows for secure scaling and building on layer 2

Are you sure about that? It’s just one option and a very messy option. Might be smarter/more secure if we KISS it. There will be better/less messy options in time. For now the base layer ain’t broke, so don’t fix it.

One I believe I can do. Monero.

Nothing else and even there I am torn, but I do believe it's an honest project with a sound tech and understandable use case.

CMIIAW

Today I learned about drivechains. I know fuck all except for what I read in a couple threads and read in 15 minutes of googling.

Give me your best why yes, why not.

Two senteces at most.

nostr:note12yse7ke6t6wcx79h2rzmwzqj2mmqyze3evdg0k2aa0xkkx79jtassf063z

The lessons Bitcoin is teaching all of us about how to build a better world together are beautiful. Accountability. Strength. Logic. Debate. Cooperation. And a million others. Thanks for sharing your thoughtful views. This is how we win.

Preston, with all due respect, if you dont know the difference between a soft and hard fork, i dont see any point in you weighin on such technical topics, you dont know what you are talking about.(but everyone is free to share their opinion ofc)

That being said i absolutely agree with you on this point. Dont do shit that fucks up bitcoin, and make stupid trade-offs, but this is a very nuanced thing.

Not sure you know, but bitcoin looked way different a few years ago it changed quite a bit.

Some of those changes bought risk and complexity, but also allowed us to do a lot of interesting things.

FWIW SegWit was such a change, but it payed of, we fixed maleability enabled LN and other stuffs.

I am not 100% sure drivechains is the best thing, but also i dont have a hate them, but non-technical arguments, dont really convience me.

These kind of remarks just sound like whataboutisms(its a thing).

Also nodes do not vote, that is technically incorrect.

Check out the drive chains site, or layer two labs for technical explanations. It's very interesting. It solve a problem you (we) don't even know we have yet.

Well I'm easily bookmarking this thread. Great discussions going on.

Fucking around with miner incentives doesn't appeal to me.

To all involved, please keep in mind that BITCOIN is not just for the few (personal wants), it belongs to the WORLD!

You are all impressive developers, builders, contributors, and I appreciate you. So, I have no doubt that TOGETHER we can make BITCOIN serve us ALL.

Ask not what Bitcoin can do for you, ask what Bitcoin can do for the

world❣️

Peace, Love & FREEDOM to you all 🕊️

Cannot agree more. The auditable, secure and immutable bitcoin blockchain base layer is what has been missing in money for 3000 years. People who don't understand this want widgets and gadets added that will make it look like all the other fiat crap that DID exist for 3000 years and failed. People dont understand sound money. This is it, this is the one shot we have, don't mess with it ! Especially through ignorance.

What immutability ? Are you claiming BTC v. 1 is the same as what we have now ?

Why is everyone not using Bitcoin(yet) ? Because Gresham's Law(bad money drives out good money under legal tender laws) is still in effect. While that law holds people will preferably use the fiat crap to spend because they have to so long as the legal tender laws are in place and the useless money is inflating away. Spend the junk before it has no value at all ! When CBDCs and other surveillance money gets forced onto us, people will wake up out of necessity. In the meantime they are using bitcoin as savings

Schrodinger's Drivechain

Everything is a shitcoin and they offer no value or utility whatsoever, but we want them all on Bitcoin

Agreed. Over engineering the base layer is a surefire way to screw up Bitcoin.

nostr:note12yse7ke6t6wcx79h2rzmwzqj2mmqyze3evdg0k2aa0xkkx79jtassf063z

there is a good reason to believe bitcoin cannot "peg" the economy into reality if it isn't accessible enough, like gold couldn't. unfortunately the same drawbacks of gold's difficult portability are translated in a way to the limit on bitcoin's bandwidth - it's trade-offs all the way down

but - LN is adding a few orders of magnitude of extra bandwidth in a way that isn't changing base layer dynamics, and - covenants based ideas such as coin pools can expand bandwidth with additional orders of magnitude, again, without changing the game-theoretic dynamics of the base layer - and without changing the original nature of holding bitcoin through control of UTXOs, on-chain or off-chain

not all BIPs are the same, it's a subject that's worth digging, now probably more than ever

https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2021/12/10/advent-13/

How’s is this different from Lightning? Segwit softfork enabled Lightning . Taproot softfork enabling taproot assets. We all run these nodes happily knowing that shitcoins will possibly be on there soon.

I got my node and my vote.

Drive chain attack vector

1. Bitcoin implements drive chains

2. Governments issue CBDCs. They are full Orwellian dystopia, ban cash.

3. Someone starts a stable coin on a drive chain that locks up CBDC and issues privacy focused stable coin with proof or reserves, all the best features.

4. Everyone prefers the privacy drive chain money over the CBDC, becomes main usecase for CBDC.

5. Drive chain grows 100 times larger than Bitcoin in terms of transaction fees for miners.

6. Government threatens to freeze locked up CBDC if Bitcoin miners don't sensor wallets that have been identified as belonging to some undesirable entity.

7. A series of hard forks occur when wallets are forked out. First minor uncontroversial issues but once a precedent is set government requests more frequent censorship for more minor issues. Forks that don't censor transactions find themselves with a minority of the hash rate. Uncensored Bitcoin suffers 51% attacks from government controled miners. Uncensored Bitcoin forks enter death spiral.

Oh well, it’s been fun 🤷‍♂️

Blind merge mining. Miners don't know who. Gov would have to target the drive chain project, not the miners.

6. So how is the CBDC locked up ? In DC, BTC is locked, not a CBDC. Any manipulation of a CBDC and the project can just out through bitcoin. Risk is limited to the DC token and project consumers.

It would have to be in a round about way. Government attacks DC token project because it runs on Bitcoin, puts pressure on it to switch to a captured token like ETH.

If the DC project fees accounted for the majority of Bitcoin mining revenue, miners would have to choose between a compliant Bitcoin fork in order to keep receiving revenue from the project or loosing revenue.

That's not how DC works though. A successful project on DC might be vulnerable but not bitcoin. To miners and bitcoin its just another hash block. Blind merged minning is already bitcoin core by the way. Your premise requires miner censorship, which is not and has not been successful now despite years of attempts.

If you would read Pauls years of work on DC, you would see that DC actually increases security. More profits for miners secures the network, more... that's the way satoshi designed it. In addition, more miners entering the space means a larger physical lobby against gov interference (Matt Kratter).

If the a majority of Bitcoin miners revenue comes from a drive chain project, and that project demands a change to Bitcoin or it will go elsewhere. The miners are incentivise to move to a censorship fork to receive the revenue from the DT project

Oh fuck ya PDaddy you’re sounding like quite the accelerationist ;) Wear the hat in a coming pod??

Chess is not even the same game it once was.

Chess is not real life, with chance accidents and real world discoveries of new technologies.

Not only is your comparison unfit, it ignores a better one. Ecology.

Bitcoin exists in a competive jungle and you are arguing for overspecialization in the fastest moving environment in human history, software.

I doubt you will read this, but drive chain allows a slow main chain and second layer innovation. The orthodox tradition and youthful iconclasm, both.