Nostr Web Client

After watching this interview, my understanding of how #drivechain work is still incomplete but here are a few concerns I have:

1) Miners would gain the ability to censor transactions by blocking the peg-out with only 25% of the votes. I could see a scenario where large pools (above 25%) would be mandated by a government to censor transactions that don’t comply with #KYC (or other blacklist). Hence, people could not withdraw their fund from a sidechain when trying to send to a non-KYCed #Bitcoin address.

2) Sidechains could cannibalise #BTC security by fragmenting hashpower between the main chain and the sidechains.

Are these concerns legit or FUD?

An argument that Paul used many times to alleviate these concerns is that if you don’t use drivechains, you’re not impacted but I disagree with this statement. Any issues with fund being stuck on sidechains will undermine the Bitcoin brand. Most folks are not going to understand the nuances and it could result in the public perception that Bitcoin is not safe and secure.

I’m not opposed to Bitcoin evolving but I’d rather like to see proposals related to on-chain scaling for Bitcoin to be more usable as a medium of exchange. If there is a risk to undermine the brand or security of Bitcoin, I’d prefer for the #crypto experimentations to take place on alternative #blockchain rather than on Bitcoin. nostr:note1xj0366z5repa5x6huj3ycwcwh6wv989ekc2vpvz6pgh9kyg3f4pqf7qnmh

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

drrivechain increases security. Number of transactions go up ? So does the network security

LogicallyMinded 2y ago

I understand this from the point of view of increasing the fees to be distributed to miners but it seems like there is still a risk of hashpower canibalization between the main chain and sidechains or am I missing something? #Bitcoin #Bip300 #drivechain

Citrus Maximus 2y ago

Sidechains do not "mine" using hashpower. Every side chain block is mined by creating a single transaction on the main chain that pays transaction fees to main chain miners in btc like any other transaction.

Basically, if you are a sidechain , you build a sideblock by aggregating side-transactions, charging side-btc. You then turn back and offer btc to main chain miners for them to include a commitment of the block you just built on the main chain.

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

Does not cannibalise btc hash. sidechain and btc hash end up securing eachother. A miner that secures a side chain is paid in btc which is a btc tx. More btc txs secures the network.

LogicallyMinded 2y ago

Right, but a given amount of hashpower needs to be directed to either a sidechain or the main chain. It can’t be directed to both at the same time. It’s a zero sum game. #Bitcoin #Bip300 #drivechain

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

Not true. If you actually read the bip301Blind merged mining. Let's say 90% of hash is devoted to a single sidechain. That means those miners are being paid in bitcoin, being paid in bitcoin IS network security.

before they ran a seperate node to be paid in that sidechains token, lets say ethereum for example. With BMM bip301 they are paid in bitcoin, which secures the network.

LogicallyMinded 2y ago

Thanks for your inputs. I need to research this a bit more but to me, being paid in #BTC isn’t the same as securing the main chain with hashpower. I can see how it’s better than being paid with another #crypto but there can still be a hashpower cannibalization effect as far as I understand.

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

So what do you mean by hashpower ? You mean mining and transaction fees right ?

Because that is how bitcoin works fren.

The longevity of bitcoin security relies on fees, not mining or price per bitcoin reward for mining.

Also read the FAQ, instead of people writing about Drivechain. People writing about DC are often involved in competing projects who stand to lose from becoming irelevant. Good luck.

Drivechain.xyz

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

peg outs can not be censored they are blinded. they "might" be delayed but not in perpetuity. Censorship requires identity.