nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 points out reasons why bitcoin could fail. I like this argument, because we should never be complacent. But I think it's overly negative. Bitcoin has been a hugely successful project, and with nostr and zaps its getting even better.
Without higher transaction throughput bitcoin is not useless, because it's a store of value with finite supply. It's true, bitcoin was not created to be digital gold, but if it competes with or replaces gold, that's a huge achievement. There are indications that governments will allow bitcon to compete with gold.
I'd love it if drive chains worked, but I feel the game theory is lacking when you plug in real world numbers. On any successful drive chain the market cap quickly moves to 1000x the daily fees, which is an unstable game theoretic state.
Drivechains are a great project in that they are educating the whole bitcoin community and getting people to question their assumptions. But I think in it's current form it's a long shot.
Personally I would like to try out some of these use cases over nostr, and allow users or relays to create a peg-out system that requires a 2/3rds honest majority.
> we can create a bunch of decentralized sidechains, *backed by the same mining process*
The mining process is part of the problem. Namely when the rewards go to nil.
Maximalists forget that stuff like Monero or Grin isn’t just about privacy. It’s not even primarily about privacy.
Yes, when the rewards go to nil, reorgs become cheaper, and cheaper as a % of market cap. We need solutions here, and we should look at ways that other coins have tried to solve this problem.
If the hash rate dropped by 90%, it would still be a costly failure and disaster for anyone trying to do a 51% attack lol.. You really don't know much about #Satoshi or what you're dealing with. Do you?..😆😂🤣🤭😊
