The best argument to be made to bitcoiners who oppose #Bip300 is that if #drivechain were to be implemented, it would move all future experimentations on those as opposed to the base layer hence guaranteeing the integrity of the base layer for eternity.
To the contrary to what some believe, drivechains would secure the integrity of #Bitcoin for the future.
And politics. Vote with your dollar on the features you want instead of having to convince everyone or a majority.
This democratic bitcoin will lead right back to fiat
Don't think that's the best argument.
Isn't that the reason why there's testnet and signet?
Even if you test an experimentation on the testnet, once tested, you’ll end up in the same scenario without #drivechains. An experimentation doesn’t end with the testing phase, it continues even after its deployment.
#Bip300 #drivechain
Testnet is to prove that specific changes to the protocol have been thoroughly tested and vetted. It is not an experimentation platform. It is a step towards mainnet adoption. Incidentally, how long has drivechains been on testbed, and how thoroughly has it been vetted?
There pretty much is no logic to people pushing #Drivechain. They just want to invent new solutions to issues that have a solution. In the end they will only invent new issues
Deploying #drivechains is certainly not the destination. It would add a platform to #Bitcoin for innovation to take place without compromising the integrity of the base layer. Of course, drivechains won’t provide new utility on day 1 to the end users. But it will provide liquidity and network effect to developers looking to extend the capabilities of #BTC.
What’s wrong with this approach?
Innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum, you need the proper environment for it to thrive.
This kind of discussion brings me back to another post I wrote recently about this debate being more about Bitcoin politics between BTC conservatism vs BTC progressivism than it is about tech.
#Bip300 #Drivechain
You suggest that the base layer won't be compromised, but the base layer carries is an emergent model of competing incentives that will absolutely be altered on the side of the miners. Paul has even speculated that a sidechain could dominate transaction volume, so the majority use case could actually have its security model wateres down to trusting miner custody.
That’s the model #Bitcoin has chosen to take. If there is more demand for block space then you need to pay higher fees for your transaction to be processed. If you don’t like the fees you need to use an L2. #Drivechains won’t change this, although they could make fees more expensive.
I think #BTC maxis would agree that it is how Bitcoin is intended to work.
#Bip300 #drivechain
We are talking about a proposed soft fork. A soft fork is inherently SUGGESTING how bitcoin SHOULD work, not how it was intended to work.
Drivechains has been an open proposal for years, available for any POW chain to implement and permit the experimentation. If utility and experimentation are an objective value proposition, why hasnt any POW chain jumped at the opportunity, and (excuse my ignorance) if they have, why havent they surpassed bitcoin in adoption?
I can’t say exactly why is hasn’t been tried on other POW #blockchain. But because of the trustless nature of the peg-out system, it may not be wise for a POW blockchain with little hashrate to consider this proposal.
Also, if implemented, I don’t know if #drivechains would end up being adopted but the only blockchain that has a fair shot at seeing drivechains being adopted is #Bitcoin.
There is less of an incentive to deploy a blockchain on a layer 2 tied to a blockchain that has little network effect. You’d be better just build a new blockchain from scratch.
In terms of utility don’t you think that #drivechain enabling the anonymization of #BTC would provide utility to the network? That’s just one example but I don’t understand the argument to say that there is no utility for drivechains.
#Bip300
Sigwit was first implemeted on litecoin. Why not put DC on litecoin? That probably has sufficient POW and could demonstrate any unanticipated incentive model issues.
#Drivechains won’t get any traction on #Litecoin (because of the lack of network effect) so you would have to wait that someone builds on top of it (which probably won’t happen) to then test your hypothesis.
It would be a great way to kill the concept of #drivechain without giving it a fair shot to succeed. Actually maybe opponent to #Bip300 should go ahead and deploy it on Litecoin but there is no reason for supporters to adopt an approach that is meant for failure.
I am sorry but that argument conflicts with even what Paul Sztorc himself speculates what might happen on an altcoin. He thinks Drivechains has so much utility value that it might actually cause Litecoin (or another alt) to rise significantly in price, creating a new network effect that challenges Bitcoin's!
I disagree with Paul on this one.
If Drivechains cant bring value, independent of the chain it is implemented on, it sounds like drivechains needs bitcoin more than bitcoin needs drivechains.
Ironically, this seems to be what Paul's behavior belies as well. He seems more in love with his own ideas than he is concerned about the risks inherent in implementing them on Bitcoin.
I just mentioned an example earlier where #drivechains would bring value to #Bitcoin (#BTC anonymization). Isn’t it a valid use case in your opinion?
#Bip300 #drivechain
Sure, but not at the risk of fundamnetally altering the miner incentive model. DC puts far more governance responsibities on miners and makes them custodians. The risk is not worth the reward, if it could be achieved via other layer 2 solutions that don't alter miner incentives.
I’ve listened to a lot of debates about the potential issue with #drivechains changing the miners incentive model but so far I’ve found those arguments unconvincing. That said, if you have a good resource/interview to share that clearly lay out this argument I’d like to see to see it.
#Bip300 #drivechain
“Might make that coin extra valuable…” 😭😂🤣
