Why? Bitcoin is a perfect store of value. Keep it as it is and don't destroy its value proposition.
Use other networks as you see fit. There will always be trade-offs involved.
Discussion
Look like you are a fan of Monero.
I am a fan of freedom and choice
and I use what works for the intended use case.
Great, and I'm a fan of Drivechain to let people experiment new ideas but using bitcoin as currency and not other altcoin.
Why not use drivechains on BTC today? Because you need to change its software! And I don't agree that drivechains are needed on Bitcoin. So even if drivechains are done in a soft fork you add complexity, which I am against. I want Bitcoin to be an immutable store of value and excel at it and nothing else.
You can use other networks today and you even can easily fund it with your BTC (think of it like an investment in stocks). Once you got the value you looked for from your use case transfer back those leftover back to Bitcoin.
Ethereum is miles ahead when it comes to "drivechain" solutions. Every network other than Bitcoin and Monero offer certain smart token capabilities. Even BCH has "cash tokens".
Taproot had unintended consequences. If you add more complexity and you unknowingly (at first) might kill its most valued qualities.
Sorry, I don't agree and I don't want to touch altcoins.
I want to grow bitcoin network effect.
By destroying its value proposition for early Bitcoin investors like me? That are exactly the unintended consequences I am talking about.
I'm an early investor in Bitcoin too. Drivechain is a softfork, if you don't like it, you don't need to use it. Bitcoin continues to work the same way always worked for you.
I know. I recognised your user name.
Soft forks have unintended consequences all the time. It's not just about me deciding to use the feature or not.
See, I don't have anything against experimenting with drivechains. Just not on Bitcoin. And definitely not now.
Ok, we have a different vision about it. I think do nothing can have bad consequences too.
The "unintended" consequences I see are more network effect, more experimentation, more use cases, more users.
Me, too. And: because privacy became such an important topic in today's society I am now a Monero and Bitcoin guy.
To grow network effect we can't have others coins competing with Bitcoin. Doesn't make sense.
I'd argue: Competition is the only path to ensure value.
Do you want competition in the currency you hold? I prefer to absorve the improvements in one single currency.
How to convince people to use and hold bitcoin if there are many projects competing with it? and with bitcoin stagnant.
That's your free choice. I am happy for you if you are happy not touching anything else than the bag you married.
No consent involved in that. However you want to change the bag for all of us so you need to get consent (consensus) from me and others. And I don't see more than 20% (high number) of people in favor of drivechains at the moment.
To sum it up: We should explore the capability of smart tokens based on LN before we touch Bitcoin.
It's not about tokens that I'm in favor of Drivechain.
What is consensus for you?
Obviously there are many different ways to look at it from a more technical to a more social perspective.
In my opinion consensus means that we both can rely upon assumptions we held in the past will still highly held up (honoured) in the future so we all can make economically relevant decisions which will impact our personal life, community life and society at large.
Bitcoin is the only network currently that favoured immutability (and ossification, which has a price) over anything else. If it weren't for Bitcoin to hold up this torch someone would need to invent a new network that takes care of it. Bitcoin has the highest value in crypto because it is equal to the US constitution. Every other country on this planet relates to it in one form or another.
The constitution is clear in what it protects and stands for itself. Changing it more often than not means that someone tries to undermined it. And in that case hard forks and soft forks are just different attitudes to change what shouldn't be
changed at all.
So Bitcoin consensus for me is to agree on something so valuable that we won't change it at all no matter the consequences. It's a representation of our (mental) power. It's also an appreciation of life and that everything that is claimed to
be changed for the better also carries an equaly sized bag of unintended consequences that will amass over time and eventually cause its own downfall.
Looks like the same argument of nostr:nprofile1qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncxzszx8