In the video above, Saylor explains why Bitcoin shouldn’t be private. Here is an article where he says:
"I don’t really think that Bitcoin’s going to be currency in the US ever. Nor do I think it should be. I really think logically it should be treated as property. It’s like owning a building, or owning a bar of gold, or owning a share of stock. It’s property."
You are getting information from articles and videos of more then 2 years ago, take from an interview made in a anything-crypto channel where the audience is not looking for a bitcoin-maxi. Saylor is also famous for his anti-bitcoin tweet in the past, completely changing its position in 2020. He become way more maxi during 2022 and 2023.
Monero is a good technology but it does fall in the hard cap fallacy, making it inflationary as any current currency.
Bitcoin in its layer 1 is and will never focus in a privacy way because as Saylor said, the value is in the open and fully trasparent ledger. Differencies can be made when you look into the layers 2 (as Lightning Network), here possibilities are bigger because their protocol are shaped to integrate more programmable functions, like Monero's ones.
Just listen to his newer interviews. I don't ever recall him to talk about any other "crypto" because with a second and third layer everything can be done just with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin in layer 1 will never be a currency because its main focus will always be decentralization and security. The Trilemma is clear, and the layer 1 sacrifice the scalability part, making it possible in others layers.
Exactly, the idea that Bitcoin remains the same and everything is built on L2s is exactly what I thought Bitcoin is supposed to be. But Saylor doesn’t want drivechains because it would allow us to exchange Bitcoin with complete privacy. Instead, he likes what we currently have- Liquid and Lightning that will eventually demand custodial solutions to scale and doesn’t have anything close to the privacy of Monero.
Heard about it, never looked into it. I've seen mixed reactions. I'll check what I can understand.
I'm just not pro altcoins because they have no value outside their unit of mesurement for energy/time/utility/scarcity. There is no sense to have different unit for the same concept. Just as having both metric and imperial unit have no utility.
We just need ONE monetary unit with the best attributes, and we know there is just one.
In my first sentence I am referring to Drivechains
I’m worried about nostr:npub1v6xwae25wh6etmqw3m6yce9lnk5dnhtqpzk9fhxjfvjsryctjc8q2kxk5t getting Monero-pilled. 😆
No way, Monero is a shitcoin 😅
But ring signature is a fascinating technology that I would like to use with my satoshis
Is there a BIP?
Yes it’s BIP-300 and BIP-301. Luke Dashjr is writing the code for it and getting it prepared for the miners.
Ring signatures are in the same BIP as drivechains?
LOL they always love to drop names, like we give a fuck and didn't run a train on the OG's with UASF
What memories this brings back.
nostr:note1zws32vk94uuqr6c2u4qj0ayx8ffwjce8l8g2dcd33mgzznt6uvdqyv60ns
Yes, you’re talking about a soft fork vs a hard fork, and everyone chose to stay on the real Bitcoin with a soft fork.
I’m talking about a soft fork and people choosing a hard fork to keep that soft fork from implementation. This is not only a much harder battle, but it seems the big names are telling us to do this against our best interest.
A user rejected soft fork without unanimous oposition from industry and miners would mean the miners bitch right out
And if 51% of miners bitch out, that means Drivechains would just become a big continuous looting campaign until it dies.
the miners won't drop out of the game. they have too much staked in it, they'll stay on the fork that keeps the market cap. same old story. the inertia of miners is what vouchsafes bitcoin, and they are way too big to be interested in shitcoining by fiat or for pay.
The fork that keeps the market cap will be the fork that keeps their revenue predictable. It is the ones that nodes signal they are the safest
or in other words, not shitcoin drivechain shite.
I worry about this too. If the chain splits, and Saylor and BlackRock pull all their money out to invest in the hard fork, that would be a deceptive signal.
BlackRock has already said if the chain splits, they may not choose the "real Bitcoin". Drivechain is way too cypherpunk for them, so I think they will try to stop it.
It doesn't need to be a hard fork. You can still have a contentious soft fork, blocks of which are perfectly valid to unconcerned nodes, but rejected by URSF. Ascribing parties and bad intentions is premature here. Some nodes just don't want to deal with the externalities of the altered game theory; that would be conservatism; not maliciousness.
Also, do not count on miners to go charging forward with some contentious Drivechains change, if they could get even a whiff of substantial node rejection. They can't afford to fight for your cYpHerPUnK iDEalS when it is their electricity and revenue on the line.
i.e. most miners will bitch out without broad consensus among network participants INCLUDING nodes.
are you aware that this person is using the holy triple letters in vain? they literally called DC "cypherpunk". *cough*
I am not really sure what to call DC. If there is no proven demand for sidechains, hardly anyone uses sidechains, does it even matter if DC is cypherpunk? This largely feels like a lot of wasted energy for a solution that would have been DOA but not for a funded effort tryna meme it into existence.
seems like hella money going into it tho, i mean, there has to be at least 20 full time morons on the case. unless they are cult drones or something, collecting welfare. the whole thing is fishy to me.
“Shitcoiners will see the light and build on bitcoin!”
LOL, no they won’t.
Exactly. We don’t need shitcoiners to build on Bitcoin. They can build whatever they want. We just steal their code and use it on L2 Bitcoin, if we have a desire for that functionality. Or, Bitcoiners who value privacy and scaling can make the code even better.
There will be no PEPE sidechain, because it doesn’t do anything. There will be a zcash sidechain, and if I could use lightning with the same privacy as zcash, I most certainly would.
Ha. I just assume you are all AIs and this is an open-ended text adventure. The engagement over drivechains is an extension of ordinals or Stacks -- there is a growing "builder" pressure, full of people who don't know anything but how to work or influence within the "crypto" industry, and now that all their shit is collapsing, they are trying to jam all their failed ideas into bitcoin, bc they don't want to get real jobs.
funny that you assume ai's when humans are doing the whole nym thing too.
you know that public confession is a cult mind manipulation technique, right? they got the whole world doing it. even otherwise sane and sensible people are doxxing themselves all day long.
i want a real job, but not working for some shitcoin corporation that is, like you say, going down the shitter. nor do i want to be building infrastructure to spy on people. building for nostr, LN and bitcoin are the only tech jobs right now that aren't a diabolic contract.
i have pretty strong faith that bitcoin will resist the interlopers and infidels who have ridden all over people to get here. they all belong in a fiery pit of a volcano caldera. fate has brought me the capacities to get somewhere in this, i mean, i've even literally abandoned my steam game account, my gaming rig, my sound system, i got nothing left but to build something good for this new system.
Can you explain how URSF works? I’ve looked into it, but it seems like the people discussing it don’t really understand how it works.
If there is a version of Bitcoin Core that doesn’t have TapRoot, but it has CTV, how would this not be a hard fork?
A URSF simply works by rejecting blocks signaling for the contentious feature. It is a deliberate withholding of information from the rest of the network, meaning miners will have an easier time getting their expensively-made block propagated to the network by NOT signaling fpr DC.
URSF is a very new concept, so please excuse my ignorance of it. Do you know what individuals who run nodes would need to do, and what percentage of the nodes would need to do it?
It would be similar to UASF, which was wildly popular among node runners duringhe blocksize war . An alternative source branch would be forked from core, binaries would be made available, which each node runner would have to install, which sounds complicated, but node-in-a-box distros (like Raspiblitz or Start9) would probably provide an easy install menu item.
What percentage of node runners were necessaey would really depend on how committed the miners are to going to war.
Okay, this seems complicated. In the blocksize war, a majority of nodes didn’t have to do anything because they were battling a hard fork.
Let’s say 20% of node runners install these binaries, 5% install the drivechain upgrade, and 75% do nothing. Would that signal to the miners that 80% support the new soft fork?
I think there are a lot of factors at play here that make it difficult (for me at least) to say this is a straight equation. Of course the number of participants is important. But what is the threshold and time window for activation? Are the miners actually ready to produce DC-compatible blocks (signaling is not strictly readiness), and also what is their tolerance for risk of producing a block that might get beat out by a non-DC signaling block (the URSF can even block DC-signaling blocks before DC activation)? Miners have budgets and profit margins. Are they ready to assume this risk over a protracted, contentious battle? Can pools that signal for DC keep their participants from jumping to another pool that doesn't?
idk what he's talking about, readiness IS the signal.
If you're upgraded, you can certainly flag. But how do you know they aren't just running software that signals as a bluff? There is no guarantee. It is not a vote.
Yeah it all seems messy.
Okay, let’s say you have the ability to stop drivechain with a another soft fork, and you have to choose:
1. Don’t upgrade, and your node is not effected whatsoever
2. Upgrade to drivechain to either use it, or as a tool to have available just in case
3. Install the blocking soft fork so that nobody else can use drivechain
Why would someone choose 3 over the other options?
Node runners are usually running a node, because they have made a conscious decision to be a participant in the network. There is no payoff beyond validating your own copy of the blockchain, broadcasting your own transactions, and private querying of the mempool and blockchain.
So you have to wonder what *kind* of people would do that, and the broad majority of those are pretty much ideological participants.
And your asking why ideological participants would go to the effort of #3, when they've already gone to all the other effort of running a node? Tell me you weren't around for UASF without telling me yOu weren't around for UASF.
Sorry, I think my question wasn’t very clear. I mean why, ideologically, would someone actively forbid others from using drivechain?
Wen mute keywords in nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955?
Perhaps, because they are vested in the long-term stability of Bitcoin, they will have a level of unease with the under-scrutinized added complexity that drivechains adds to the game theory. You would have to poll all the URSF node runners to know exactly why.
Maybe it's simply "fuck that bcasher and his nerd project"
if 75% do nothing, that's 75% that won't propagate blocks with the new garbage in them.
do you have dyslexia?
it sounds like bullshit to me. this is not how bitcoin works. user rejected. like if you don't actively deny it it is gonna pass.
excuse me if i sound stupid but if i don't upgrade to use the code how is that not rejecting it?
URSF was first proposed in 2022 as a counter to CTV. Here is Sjors Provoost and Aaron vonWirdum explaining it.
==========
Bitcoin Explained - The Technical Side of Bitcoin: Episode 57: User Rejected Soft Forks (URSFs)
Episode webpage: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bitcoin-explained/episodes/Episode-57-User-Rejected-Soft-Forks-URSFs-e1r577v
lol. "too cypherpunk" my ass. cipher deez nuts.
not to mention it weakens the security of the money use case.
I'm not worried. Sounds based af.
Right, I agree with all of this. Bitcoin IS that one monetary unit. A sidechain is not an altcoin. It is bound by the 21 million and hashing power of Bitcoin.
You do not exchange your Bitcoin for a Monero and use their blockchain. You exchange your Bitcoin for a Bit-Monero that could have additional features and you can run your own node. When you convert back to Bitcoin, the Bit-Monero is burned.
It just steals all the altcoin’s technology and makes any potential use-case obsolete on anything besides Bitcoin.
Got your point also reading the other comments you made, at first it looked like a s***tcoiner take. My fault!
If we could bring here more Monero dev it could really help.
I'll watch some more videos about Drivechains, but, until I get a solid studied opinion, I still give much respect to Saylor point.
He knows what he talks about and he have more skin in the game then anyone else. I just don't get the people that are against him.
No value? That's not for you to decide for others. Value is subjective. Bitcoiners should especially know this.
Are you someone who wants strong default privacy, real world fungibility, and very cheap tx fees? #Monero
