Replying to Avatar BTCapsule 🏴

The security of the peg-out is backed by the greed of the miners. They are incentivized to mine the blocks and keep the system going with PoW. So it’s a bunch of game-theory and everything that currently keeps Bitcoin secure.

If a sidechain is successful, the miners get a steady income of actual L1 Bitcoin from it. So an L2 could be just as decentralized as BitcoinCASH (which is much better than Liquid or Fedimints), have increasingly better technology and privacy, and be completely backed by L1.
Avatar
The Daniel ⚡️ 2y ago

I have no plans to run this BIP on my node. I don't trust any so-called "urgent" protocol changes. It sounds way too convoluted and risky.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

That is a perfectly reasonable response. But if the Core devs say they have another "soft fork" that doesn’t include drivechains, but includes CTV, would you leave the highest timechain?

Avatar
The Daniel ⚡️ 2y ago

I don’t have a use for drivechains or CTV myself but I will always support whatever the consensus fork is to preserve the longest PoW chain. I just don’t see why any of this is critical for bitcoin to succeed.

Avatar
BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

Have you read this? It basically explains how in order to scale Bitcoin, we will eventually need Lightning factories and custodial solutions because on-chain transactions and the liquidity needed to run a lightning channel will be so high. There is a scaling issue, and I believe drivechains are the best option for future scaling and privacy.

https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/thoughts-on-scaling-and-consensus-changes-2023/32

Avatar
The Daniel ⚡️ 2y ago

I have not read this random article. I’m sure if the issue is important enough to solve by consensus there will be plenty of time to discuss it over the next few years. I’m still experiencing PTSD from the last scaling debate so forgive me if I don’t get too excited about any one proposal.