Blackrock is used to a world where it’s size means power.
That doesn’t apply in Bitcoin consensus. Their node is no bigger or more relevant than any other. They might be able to make more noise in the media or find more FUD but they can’t directly decide anything other than their own ETF and a Bitcoin ETF using non-Bitcoin is gonna fail.
đź’Ż I just worry that when Bitcoin forks from drivechains, they will quickly pump the fork. This, mixed with the contentiousness around drivechains, could push a lot of people to switch- thinking they are saving Bitcoin and a hero of the new Drivechain War
Drivechains aren’t happening so I wouldn’t worry about it.
Weren't they already discussed since 2015? Why are they back on the table today?
[809711]
My only guess is nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 likes them, and he said something about it on Twitter. Paul (the creator of the BIP) is paying Luke Dashjr to write the code.
Those articles are hieroglyphics to me. What does a drivechain do exactly? Why would Bitcoin need anything like this right now?
What added "functionalities" and "security" do they provide?
I mean Taproot was clear.
[809713]
With drivechains, privacy tech and larger blocks for scalability would be on an L2, so that L1 isn’t effected. If they were merged before SegWit and Taproot, we wouldn’t have a 4x blocksize increase or monkee jpegs on L1.
The way it works is you send your Bitcoin to a special address and receive a 1-to-1 peg to a copy of a shitcoin’s code. So you wouldn’t actually receive Monero. You would receive something like Bit-Monero, that has the exact same functionality (private transactions), but limited to Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap.
Whenever you want to peg out, you burn the L2 coin and request your Bitcoin from the miners. They don’t know who you are or care whatsoever. All they want to do is check if the peg-out hash is valid, mine the block, and get the fees.
Does that make sense so far?
But how can you ensure the security and integrity of the peg-out process when transitioning between Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 1 (L1) in this solution?
[809717]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Hey Mercrcurr! Thanks for the great question!
Drivechain is madeup of two BIPs (BIP300 + BIP301). Drivechain enables a two way trustless peg to enable merge mined peer-2-peer bitcoin sidechains. Drivechain would allow bitcoin users more functionality (e.g. scalable payments sidechain, private transactions sidechain, and smart contracts sidechain) by cloning useful altcoin technologies such as Monero, Z-cash, Ethereum, etc to a bitcoin sidechain. Drivechain would allow miners to earn revenue from sidechain transaction fees helping increase the security budget of the bitcoin network.
Blockstream released a white paper on 'Sidechains' in 2014. An independent bitcoin researcher, Paul Sztorc starting blogging about his sidechain proposal idea in 2015. In late 2022, Paul Sztorc formed LayerTwo Labs and raised $3 million to raise awareness of this idea. Luke Jr was paid by LayerTwo Labs to write a copy of BIP300 Pull Request in August of 2023 to Bitcoin Core on Github. Hence, the recent discussions of Drivechain on Twitter and Nostr. d
http://Drivechain.info (Paul's blog)
http://LayerTwoLabs.com/FAQ (our site)
http://Drivechain.xyz (a fan site)
They could happen if there is a MASF, and I have searched through every L2 "solution" I can find, and nothing compares to them. I really think they should happen.
Miners aren’t going to fork off, they still need the nodes for consensus and there is absolutely no will for drivechains amongst noderunners.
Could happen yes, probability is very low to the point it’s barely worth considering. It’s why I haven’t bothered engaging in any of the debate, it’s clear it’s a non-starter. There’s a lot left to extract from what’s already on the truck today before worrying about DCs.
That’s the thing though, miners don’t have to fork off Bitcoin. It’s a softfork, so they just have to start running the code and mining the blocks. Nodes that don’t upgrade won’t even notice.
Forking off of Bitcoin would mean drivechains are merged, and then another fork without drivechains but with something else (CTV?) would be introduced. That would break the longest timechain, but it would put that fork in the direction Saylor wants it to go.
