yes, i favor reducing the blocksize and abolishing segwit also, and making all signatures schnorr "taproot" signatures oh yes and deprecate op_return permanently
Discussion
I searched it - I remember the term coming up a couple years ago but didn't deep dive. I see Adam Back had good things to say about it... Its crazy how much of my thinking about bitcoin I outsource to his opinions...
yeah, not enough people understand the cryptography, so shysters get to rule the day
Can I support bip300 drivechains with my node now? If so, this will be the first time I've tried using my node selectively for the ruleset... And idk how to do it... But so far, from my 3.5 minutes of research, I like it and am willing to learn new things because of it
drivechains are just anchored shitcoins, like ordinals or other shit
i dunno what the stuff involved is, probably nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 would be something of an expert on this, even though it is not going to change the main consensus to be better
today i sorta see where he is coming from about this, like it's some kind of attempt to reassert sanity after several major compromises on the main chain
because if you fork it, and are on the minority, you probably will end up being a bcash or bsv
so it's some kind of a hedge going on
i think the solution lies in finding how to work with what is, without changing the protocol, and if your work-around acquires substantial economic value, it will act as drag against other changes that are shitty
so there is many layers of complexity to understanding it
if support for *specific* drivechains are aimed at creating a drag on introducing dumbshit to the main chain, i'm all for that as well, but you see how many levels of abstraction we are going to here, it's getting positively byzantine
The shitcoininess makes me nervous. Still reading/watching. But it seems like it doesn't necessarily tie in shitcoins, but only potentially does. IMO the security budget only matters while Fiat exists - at some point, if security is good enough to get us there, sats mined will be sufficient inticement to mine no matter what amount they are, simply because that's the total throughput for the economy.
But low fees means miner centralization, simply because low margins cause consolidation in industries. So IMO, F'ing with block size was retarded. I want more people mining. And I'm being a hypocrite in that regard... But anyways. The only thing I think needs to be "fixed" is the speed of transactions. A second layer is the correct solution because the speed of transactions needs not be the speed of settlement. IMO, blocks should be mined even slower... Much slower. I don't want a Mars Coin, Venus Coin, and Jovian League Coin competing with Bitcoin in 1000 years. That can be prevented by slowing blocks by a few hours, which gives miners a chance to monetize energy anywhere in the inner solar system. But I've gotten off topic... I guess there are two things I think need to be fixed. But only tx speed is important in this century. And block size, since they F'd with it. 3 things. It stops there!
speed of transactions does not need to be fixed
10 minutes and the latency of the global internet are a perfect match and lightning state channels (two way transactions that can be securely updated to match a flow of sats in either direction) solve the latency problem, they just bring with them the problem of the brittleness of a source routed network system where a transaction path may not work between when the state of the network was acquired and when a vital hop in the path became congested or went offline
solving these issues can be done other ways, and i have pondered a lot the idea of atomic multipath redundant pathfinding, so transactions literally travel light lightning bolts across the paths that are open and the first one that reaches the end settles it, instead of the standard single path or atomic multipath (AMP) patterns where only one failure in all of the hops in the path causes a failure
AMP only makes bigger payments possible, it did not add redundancy
also, you get it
slower blocks would be better, actually
Speed of transactions absolutely needs to be fixed. What the technology wants and what the user wants are two very different things. Hour long settling times are absolutely fine for bill payments but not great for getting groceries (unless you open a tab I guess)
The problem will hopefully get worse with space colonization. I have been wracking my brain for a system of payment that is location invariant. I think it can be done but it won't be quite as trustless as Bitcoin.
I'm glad there are others thinking about this.
I think we should try all ideas. This is, so far, the main thing I like about drivechains.
yeah, i can see how this might be a positive feature of these things... a means to mitigate the chain migration problem that makes a minority fork greatly disabled from moving to become a majority, especially in this situation where the majority has adopted some stupid shit that any idiot can see is an attack on the chain