Nostr Web Client

Bitcoin has a sidechain. Why are you not using it? you think it would be the same reason people wont use this?

Also, what utility does tokenomics give bitcoin? Do we need a dogalon mars coin?

If you analyze your motivation to push #drivechain , does it not feel pointless?

1) Bitcoin does not have a trustless sidechain. Every sidechain is trusted, even Liquid. (Read the code. Liquid has a fallback which gives BlockStream full control of funds if the pegout federation fails to agree)

2) Drivechains do not enable shitcoins. Shitcoins get eaten up by miners, by design.

The motivation for a trustless sidechain is so that Bitcoin can act as a hard immutable backbone to a broader money system. Bitcoin cannot be money, because it fails two necessary properties: scalability and fungibility.

Drivechains enable scalability and fungibility without compromising on Bitcoin's immutability, 21M supply, or security. Its a win win win.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

His_Name_Was_Robert_Paulson 2y ago

Lightning is solving scalability and it is fungible more and more everyday with adoption. You can swap it for any other asset with ease already. These problems are already solvable by changing nothing to the network. If #drivechain is really such a good idea. The motivation would be there to fork #bitcoin and run it.

geodesic 2y ago

Lightning gets an honorable mention for sure, but it falls to all the same criticisms levied against Drivechains. Except lightning has a few practical limitations that will prevent it from ever becoming 'money'. First of which: Bitcoin literally cannot process enough transactions to onboard the human race into the lightning network.

Lightning is awesome for what it is, but the only way it can reach global scale is with trusted centralized 'platforms' no different than fiat banks. You see it already with WalletOfSatoshi. Those of us looking to build freedom money cannot settle for a new system of trusted banks. We're trying to cut banks out of the picture and build money for the people.

geodesic 2y ago

BTW, I appreciate the debate. You're giving me lots to think about ❤️

His_Name_Was_Robert_Paulson 2y ago

thats good. thanks for not taking my opinions personally

His_Name_Was_Robert_Paulson 2y ago

well the current monetary framework the global is using isn't effect at processing the human populations transactions either. lightning is showing promise that it will do better. have to keep in mind, network subsidies and 100% global scalability are hurdles that are not close to being an issue yet. focusing on the background and driving into a rock in the foreground wont get someone to their destination safely.

On that point about centralizing wallet clients like "wallet of satoshi". The market is showing that people care more about ease of use then decentralization. more competitive clients that fit that need would dilute #walletofsatoshi dominance on #lightning network. keep in mind that lightning channel maintenance tools will most likely develop to a point that the average person running there own channels will find it easy. AI tools in my mind will become more of a role in this as well. when dealing with command-lines on MS-dos, it didn't seem like a personal computer was going to be something everyone was gonna adopt. But then in 1990, a client like windows helped that adoption process.

His_Name_Was_Robert_Paulson 2y ago

What about Rootstock and its merge mining and peg-in peg-out system isn’t desirable enough for your to wants to change the existing bitcoin network?

geodesic 2y ago

Rootstock is great, but just like Liquid its pegout is based on a federated multisig option... its not trustless. If you are OK with trusted payouts, then Rootstock is great. For applications that need to be teustless, Rootstock is insufficent.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Rootstock idea is great, and the protocol is not 'bad' for the ecosystem, or undeserving of trust. Its just important to build systems that need zero trust.

His_Name_Was_Robert_Paulson 2y ago

And the base layer of bitcoin gives that zero trust p2p when needed. Everything is a give and take. There is no need to force a 100% zero trust for an instantaneous transaction for a cup of coffee at a cafe. The risks out way the rewards for anyone that use this network as a bank. Someone that plays with the network for novelty or fun may like your perspective. Anyone with skin in the game (storing wealth and using the network) can see #drivechain has more downside then up

geodesic 2y ago

We can agree to disagree about whether or not trust less L2's are a significant 'reward'; and I agree the reward should be widely considered significant to justify a protocol change... but you make no mention of risk. What risks are you referring to? I see no risk.