Serious question:
Is there a use case to BIP 300/301 (Drivechains) that ISN'T putting more shitcoins on Bitcoin?
Discussion
Well I've yet to hear of one
nostr:npub1fl7pr0azlpgk469u034lsgn46dvwguz9g339p03dpetp9cs5pq5qxzeknp likes DCs. Maybe he knows?
You can keep bitcoin core perfect as is.
Bip300 just enables a simple opcode that allows for hash rate escrow so miners can execute a peg out from sidechains without any middle men involved like a federation. (can be removed later if people don’t like it).
The benefit for Devs is they can test all there crazy ideas on sidechains without affecting mainchain. Leading to more innovation, better security and brainpower working on bitcoin. There’s no politics with Bitcoin core devs. Sidechains devs will compete against each other but Bitcoin core will focus on their work on core without distractions of soft forks proponents.
The benefits to users is ability to scale selfcustody to billions, since sidechains will compete against each other for users you can expect the best user experience, fastest, most private, will likely gain the most adoption. Making onboarding adoption easier instead of recommending custodial lightning wallets like we do now.
One of advantages sidechains have over lightning for scaling is sidechain transaction fees are not dependent on L1 fees so better experience and cheaper transactions for users.
Privacy is essential for an open society. Privacy is true freedom. If bitcoin privacy like coinjoins becomes too expensive to use then private transactions will only be used by the elites who can afford instead of the plebs. Plebs deserve the best privacy technology to protect themselves from those who have ability to abuse their power. It’s unlikely btc will get better privacy on L1 has its very political change but you can get Ring Signatures, Stealth Addresses, Confidential Transcations and End-2-End encrypted transactions via zero knowledge proofs on Sidechains.
For me the privacy is the most appealing part as I can’t see any other BIP offering such proposal for users.
I don’t know about that penny dropping when hindsight in advance has better value to the value.
Good answer, thanks Matt.
I'll table potential trade-offs for now.
What does 301 add?
My understanding is DC is both 300/301.
Bip301 is not as near controversial as bip301. People like SuperTestnet and Rubin Samson have created their versions of blind merge mining without any bip.
Basically bip301 miners can miner multiple sidechains while mining L1. It’s called blind merge mining because the miners don’t even have to run the sidechain nodes for them to mine the sidechains. It just makes more efficient way to mine sidechains for miners without to them each sidechain individually.
Apologies *bip300 is the bip some people have problems with.
There seems to be some rabbid fanatics on both sides.
Grateful you took time to explain the upsides.
I will continue to explore them and the tradeoffs.
I hope all BIPs can be judged on their merits.
It's extra tough these days, in the wake of unintended consequences of Taproot(and SegWit apparently).
May we all band together to expose the BRC-20 shitcoins, and find as many non-technical (or non-rushed) solutions together.
Then calmer heads might resume discussion.
The truth is bitcoiners opinion doesn’t matter. All that matters btc core devs support or against the idea and/or 90% of the miners hash rate signals for the idea.
So the likelihood of any proposal going through is basically very low. The btc core devs don’t even agree with each other anymore so finding consensus with a decentralised open source protocol is near impossible.
Saying that it does make sense for miners to signal for Bip300 as they would potentially receive a lot more revenue via mining Bitcoin sidechains.
Only time will tell
Yes, there are two important use cases of BIP300.
The first is non-custodial zcash (or Monero) type privacy. This is much better than shitcoins like Monero, because it uses Bitcoin and makes it impossible to distinguish between regular and private transactions.
The second is scalability. Blockchains do not scale, but 10 large block sidechains could scale to billions of people. Instead of centralization of nodes, we have L1 fully decentralized (and thus the 21 million is secure), with L2s that are slightly less secure, but FAR more secure than custodial wallets or LSPs.
Thanks. Seriously.
The "we're going to kill shitcoins by putting them on Bitcoin" really wasn't working for me.
Yeah, maybe eventually. But we can already do the most shitty of shitcoinery on L1 anyway, so might as well create sidechains in case someone comes up with an idea even stupider.
You can't have monero functionality while also being able to verify coin supply. Monero sidechain will have zero benefit to users over monero shitcoin and 100% benefit to miners.
Sidechains as scaling solutions is also useless. People can already benefit from working L2s without them being linked to miner revenue. Again a "use case" which only benefits the miners.
DCs will only boost miner revenues with zero to negative value for the rest of the network. Therefore it's easy to discern who is funding the hype around those BIPs.
https://invidious.protokolla.fi/channel/UC6U89haDyR8lul2LdiqTsmA
I watched these videos, and none of it is really a problem. The critique is that blind merge mining will devolve into classical merge mining, which solves all of this (in the rare event it happens).
Then we have L1 miners running full nodes. This is also not a problem or change of miner incentives.
nostr:note1l7m3zz4v7r5gt9wywcdq86x7gevdypz9y0negwc2muuy8urekuusd7wflv
Or copy full-chain membership proofs*
Monero's next major upgrade that does away with ring signatures and puts its privacy about on par with Zcash. I'm not 100% certain about the performance differences compared to Zcash tech, but fairly sure Zcash is still more burdensome to process by a significant margin.
If you think many sidechains could scale, why not simply scale by using different crypto that already have these desirable properties? Each with their own trade offs/use cases (the same way Litecoin usage spikes when Bitcoin fees are high). The only difference between them would be that sidechains are pegged to Bitcoin price ostensibly. But for short/medium stretches of time that could also be a bad thing.
Building out atomic swaps, DEXes, and UX/UI around them will continue making this easier and cheaper to do
With the ongoing anti-sidechain sentiment from maxis I feel like it will be such a long shot getting sidechains onto Bitcoin...on top of also trying to capture existing network effects of every crypto that is copied. I'm all for more options, and wish you luck, but it just seems like swimming upstream from where I'm sitting.
That's the main use case/goal but specifically tailored for the miners to be able to have rug-pull functionalities. Whatever else you hear will most likely come from people who think that miners call the shots so "might as well give them more revenue as in a 100 years they will have serious issues funding the network's protection against reorgs. Trust us®"