Me too. But then I read this and I’m not technical enough to know who’s got the more correct perspective.
https://twitter.com/callebtc/status/1680566177628672001?s=46&t=-mus6KRMCVYiBoT8SMf7iA
Discussion
There is the rootstock sidechain which is already using bitcoin merge mining and pays btc miners to secure the sidechain and provides additional revenue to miners. Has been up running for 5 years with no downtime and no miner has managed to get 51% majority of the coins.
But rootstock has a federated model and requires trusting the rootstock custodians with the keys to your coins.
Drivechain is an upgrade to this by allowing for trustless side chains where you have self-custodial of your own coins. Being able to have a Monero type sidechain or Eth type sidechain means you could trustlessly use your bitcoin privately and be able to trustlessly do bitcoin Defi without having to trust any custodians while all the tx fees go to miners to secure the chain. The additional revenue the miners receive will also help with the security budget later on as btc block reward keeps on halving in the future.
It would be the last change required to btc. As if anyone wanted to experiment a change they could do it on a sidechain, it’s up for bitcoin users if they wish to support a sidechain, its free market competition basically.
So I am pretty convinced drive chains would be a huge boost to bitcoin. Imo
You guys make it seems so simple as if there are no major tradeoffs to drivechains.
Proselytizing all the time too about network effects...until they apply to other already well established coins.
Let’s be honest, Monero people are scared of drivechains being implemented. It would kind of mean Monero coin would be pointless if someone was to build a monero style or z-cash style bitcoin drivechain. I have never said alt coins are completely useless. I am big fan of privacy coins like Moneroand Z-cash. It’s also possible to have trustless defi making ETH and ETH competitors pointless. What makes bitcoin unique is that it’s the most decentralised, no founder, first cryptocurrency and the uses proof of work.
Sure there will be some true Monero maxis and ETH maxis will never sell but most of the liquidity would probably move to bitcoin and bitcoin drivechains.
The old btc dev philosophy was “anything that can be built will eventually end up on bitcoin.” Glad to see this discussion of BIP-300 coming to the surface again. Drivechain propents recognise the innovation on other chains and they wish to bring it to bitcoin.
Maybe I mistook you for someone else. My bad.
I am not scared of drivechains. If they are really that great, and no major technical differences, at least the same or better UX, I would just use them. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Seems wild to think most ETH users are going to just drop everything and move over. And that is with best case scenario, no difference between ETH and drivechains. Especially after the animosity between BTC and ETH. It would have to be much better to break network effects.
The ETH marketing has always been we are better than bitcoin because we have more utility etc. Well that marketing pitch would fail if drivechain was implemented. ETH would need to find a new marketing narrative.
We will see I guess
Appreciate the conversation guys. I know one of Paul’s (and others) concerns is about the long term security when the blockchain reward decreases. Maybe Drivechain wouldn’t/won’t solve that problem. I don’t know. But conversation about that problem seems like a good idea.