Replying to Avatar preston

Valid point.

Drivechains do move the needle more from miners as rational self-insterested actors towards miners as custodial trusted-third-parties.

There are good reasons to want this, and also good reasons not to want this. For example if we get this right, the bitcoin security model can be sustainable for centuries (it isnt now) and also it removes an upper bound on the price ceiling, wrt that security model.

It's good to understand the reasons for and against.

Remember that the term "maxi" was a slur invented by shitcoiners to divide the bitcoin community.

Let's keep it civil, that's how we win!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You handwave through your main point. Why isn’t the security model viable?

Fee revenue can stay constant in Bitcoin terms (~25M sats/block) and totally pay for the security of the system. Today that means a reward of ~6.5 Bitcoin/block. In 5 halvings, that means ~44M sats/block.

So all Bitcoin has to do to meet today’s security budget is hit the purchasing power equivalent of ~$450k today… by 2040.

I somehow think it’ll do far better than that.