My very non-technical take is this: any (proposed) changes to the Bitcoin code are inherently dangerous. Any changes that make Bitcoin more complex, are potential security holes. No changes, ever, have increased Bitcoins usefulness as hard money.

Drive chains alter the incentives of Bitcoin miners. For this reason alone, we should be able extremely cautious with BIP300.

Lmao

New level in the Drivechain debate: swimming suits questions.

#bitcoin

nostr:nevent1qqs2zygk7nsutuux5wexs5th5yfv0s6v86373txft6gujlletgtx9pcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqk0ewuctj9lquj7te4jnp8d7ua4lrk2r88k9jqjkcqml2r7lh7c5qvzqqqqqqytmclf3

She clearly doesn't care and yall actually being technical hahaha

Someone will probably chime in with a more thorough/better answer but my impression is that:

Supporters want drivechains implemented to increase Bitcoin's flexibility and expressivity. With drive chains/BIP300 we would be able to 'peg out' and exchange bitcoin for a different token that enables things that would normally only be possible with alt coins.

Opposers believe that implementing drive chains could cause unforseen consequences (similar to Taproot 'enabling' ordinals and inscriptions). There is also concern about the incentives of mining in a drive chain world, where a majority of hash rate colluding could actually steal funds from drive chains, unlike now where a majority of hash rate colluding mostly enables censorship and maybe some shallow reorganization of the chain.

Like I said, someone else will probably give a better answer. For what it's worth (very little), I'm in the opposition camp. It's not worth the unknown risks just to enable shitcoinery on BTC. Alt coins have failed to impress me with their additional flexibility and functionality compared to Bitcoin. The only good things drive chains could enable IMO are increased scaling and privacy, both of which I believe can be achieved in the future without BIP300 and drive chains

Watch Bitcoin University youtube video. He gives a good argument about it.

I think they have some potential in allowing us to have more privacy related options as part of bitcoin, and letting us test out upgrades to the network that are taking years to build consensus around and adopt.

I worry though, because the social effects and economic effects that it will have are relatively unknown; it will likely trick a lot of people into thinking it solves things like scaling by introducing sidechains that have big blocks that nodes can't keep up with. It could justify ossification of bitcoin to a greater number of people making it even harder to change, its a guarantee we need a hard-fork at some point to fix a time stamping issue that *will* cause bitcoin to grind to a halt; its also a guarantee that bitcoin needs improvements in how well it utilizes block space, things like cross input signature aggregation and covenants, these could be added to a side chain of course, but if bitcoin grows to a billion users then it will be impossible to get out of that side chain because we aren't prepared to handle that volume on bitcoin.

I don't see a right answer to drive chains, only that there is critical work to be done on other upgrades and we should let this stew for a bit.

Drivechains allow deposit and withdrawal from other systems (chains). However, the withdrawal function takes 3-6 months, and is much less secure than bitcoin.

So bitcoiners rejected this proposal (for now), because of the risks.

The drivechain community said they want to push it through anyway. And bitcoiners are explaining to them, that they cant do that.

Bitcoin is hard to change, and that's quite a good thing. But of course some will be unhappy about that fact!

super complex, will need to be a long discussion- dm me

Fantástico! Excelente conocer a una princesa vecina en #Nostr!

✊💜