After watching this interview, my understanding of how #drivechain work is still incomplete but here are a few concerns I have:

1) Miners would gain the ability to censor transactions by blocking the peg-out with only 25% of the votes. I could see a scenario where large pools (above 25%) would be mandated by a government to censor transactions that don’t comply with #KYC (or other blacklist). Hence, people could not withdraw their fund from a sidechain when trying to send to a non-KYCed #Bitcoin address.

2) Sidechains could cannibalise #BTC security by fragmenting hashpower between the main chain and the sidechains.

Are these concerns legit or FUD?

An argument that Paul used many times to alleviate these concerns is that if you don’t use drivechains, you’re not impacted but I disagree with this statement. Any issues with fund being stuck on sidechains will undermine the Bitcoin brand. Most folks are not going to understand the nuances and it could result in the public perception that Bitcoin is not safe and secure.

I’m not opposed to Bitcoin evolving but I’d rather like to see proposals related to on-chain scaling for Bitcoin to be more usable as a medium of exchange. If there is a risk to undermine the brand or security of Bitcoin, I’d prefer for the #crypto experimentations to take place on alternative #blockchain rather than on Bitcoin. nostr:note1xj0366z5repa5x6huj3ycwcwh6wv989ekc2vpvz6pgh9kyg3f4pqf7qnmh