Drivechains Won't Eradicate Altcoins

--------------------------------------

There's a prevailing belief among advocates that drivechains will spell the end for altcoins. The logic is simple: if drivechains exist, they can replicate any function of an altcoin on Bitcoin itself, eliminating the need for the altcoin. For example, if an altcoin boasts privacy features, those could be integrated into Bitcoin using drivechains, making the altcoin redundant.

Technically, this perspective has merit. Many altcoin innovations can indeed be integrated into Bitcoin via sidechains. For example RSK is a Bitcoin sidechain that uses Ethereum's scripting language to copy its "features."

However, this viewpoint misses a fundamental point. Altcoins don't thrive purely due to their technical features. In fact, their primary purpose isn't technical at all. Altcoins mainly serve to profit their founders and early investors.

Take ZCash and ZClassic as examples. They are technically identical and the only difference is political. ZCash had a premine and a dev tax, ZClassic did not. They are completely redundant, yet, their coexistence remains undisturbed.

At its core, the altcoin world revolves around profit and politics, not technical features. Most of these "features" are not just dubious but actively harmful, as can be seen in the many different exploits of their bad designs. Technical features are significant only if they attract new investors. In essence, they serve more as promotional tools than as core functionalities.

Many mistakenly see Bitcoin's value solely in its technical attributes. While these are crucial, Bitcoin's real strength lies in its monetary nature and the decentralized scarcity it creates. Overemphasizing its technical aspects risks overlooking this foundational economic characteristic.

Drivechains are an intriguing technological development, but they're not going to suddenly stop new altcoins from launching or even succeeding in getting new people to buy in. People don't buy altcoins because of features, they buy altcoins because they want to gamble.

Besides, if it was just technical features, wouldn't other sidechains like Liquid and RSK be more popular than the thousands of altcoins out there? The past seven years suggest that drivechains won't change this.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

They can not end altcoins, but for sure if Drivechain happens, we can have a good argument to try to convince people to not gamble in altcoins. And Drivechain can enable new interesting developments. I don't see any rational reason to not enable Drivechain.

What are drivechains?

You can find the answer here: https://layertwolabs.com/

Just imagine not earning bitcoin while playing on your mobile phone! You really sleep on that? Come over to our latest habla post to learn more!

https://habla.news/a/naddr1qqxnzd3exyurgvf3xsurxv3jqgsfpr28k6zr6ymqsrr3k6d9fe76gjufa7q6cjfrmkr4jqna52ln3tgrqsqqqa28m97f5n

Create a peg-out over nostr with a federation, and you can have unlimited side chains

For me the main idea of drive chains is that changes the relationship between bitcoin and miners to maybe something sustainable

If you dont like drive chains, then you need to say how bitcoin will work when the block subsidy goes away

So far drive chains are the first group to take on this difficult question

The only thing I disagree with your idea is a federated peg. This is why liquid and rootstock have low adoption because bitcoins complain they have to trust federations with their bitcoin. Is there anyway to make a trustless model similar to Drivechains proposal?

After the subsidy comes the fees.

Why do you distinguish between sidechains and altcoins? Tokens that are not on Bitcoin blockchain are definitely altcoins.

Altcoins are about innovation, employment, tax revenues, a new chance for the excluded to make it.

agreed