nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m says he wants people to build on top of #Bitcoin so I guess he should be open to #Bip300 and #drivechains but apparently he isn’t. What do you make of this contradiction?
#BTC #drivechain nostr:note1rgcdrt255jqfw5r7fz3255rgfjhlvfwuwzezmvy40wamvtyxpyms87rg2q
How do you come to the conclusion that M. Saylor is the BIP-300 update? I don't know that.
I guess you meant to say « is against the #BIP300 update ». I don’t know what is nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m official position on #drivechains or if he has taken an official position but based on this recent tweet, it seems to not be supportive of them: https://x.com/saylor/status/1697874866102325255
I don't know if he's against the update! And even if he is against it, in the end he has no influence on it but the miners
I'm against it. Way too risky to change miner incentives that way. Something like Liquid is much safer than drivechains & Liquid isn't even really being used. We have already established that miners don't get to decide how Bitcoin changes, users do. I don't think it will happen.
Exactly. “Only miners matter” is a common refrain from the SV folks. Common Shitcoiner misunderstanding.
Miners serve at the pleasure of node operators, who hold the power to reject their blocks (for any reason).
Please don't write so aggressively! So first of all, a Bitcoiner is not a Shitcoiner. And secondly, in the END the miners decide which update they support. And I didn't take a position on the BIP-300 😉
Miners are free to mine whatever they want. If they want to get paid, then they mine the blocks that node operators will accept.
Please don't write so aggressively! So first of all, a Bitcoiner is not a Shitcoiner. And secondly, in the END the miners decide which update they support. And I didn't take a position on the BIP-300 😉
I think there are some misunderstandings on how #Bitcoin consensus works. https://youtu.be/vM_Ski2eK6A
Big block supporters lost the block size war even with supoort from 80+% of the miners & large exchanges because they didn't understand Bitcoin's security model. Economically active nodes set the rules. Read the Blocksize War & listen to Bitcoin Audible, or stay stupid.
I agree that economically active nodes such as exchanges or wallets are important in deciding the outcome of a fork but these actors are not the same as « users » but even those actors can’t setup the rules alone. It really depends on the particular scenario et dynamic at play.
Big block supporters lost the block size war even with supoort from 80+% of the miners & large exchanges because they didn't understand Bitcoin's security model. Economically active nodes set the rules. Read the Blocksize War & listen to Bitcoin Audible, or stay stupid.
Build a L2 and put that on there. No one wants that shit on the base layer
The main benefit of #drivechains against existing L2 is that it is trustless and secured by PoW. There is no value in building it on top of a L2.
It's not trustless. A large miner can potentially steal all coins in a drivechain. And thanks to merge mining the opportunity cost of attacking a small drivechain is basically zero.
A miner couldn’t practically steal coins from a chain that has the support from other miners. If a chain doesn’t have support of the miners then I guess, the chain doesn’t bring enough value to the table.
So someone's ownership of Bitcoin should be a popularity contest?
Basically a new BIP300 side chain can only be safely bootstrapped if all miners participate, making the whole BS scheme basically big blocks with more steps, but more centralizing because it cuts all other nodes out of the sidechain security model.
I don’t really understand the « beauty contest » analogy here 🤔. Not all miners need to participate. Miners will do what is in their best economic interest and #drivechains activate based on pre-defined thresholds. You’ll probably be allowed to run a #drivechain node if you want. If you don’t want to have anything to do with #drivechains, then just keep using #Bitcoin as you currently do. I don’t see what’s the problem with this.
You still need to peg in and out of the base layer. Imagine thousands of chains doing that everyday. Haven’t you learn anything from the shitty ordinals? This is Never going to get activated. If you want to shitcoin, go ahead and buy shitcoin and leave Bitcoin alone.
Bitcoin can’t scale on-chain? Maybe that’s one reason we should have drivechains…
You don’t scale on chain. You scale on L2. That’s what lightning is for. Shitcoiners forked bitcoin not because they want to scale but because they want to scam. Having drivechains will not stop all the shitcoins, it will just make bitcoin one of them.
No it is not. Otherwise it would be the base layer. You still have to trust the miners to release the funds at the specified time frame. They can just refuse or just out straight rug. Why would we need this shit on a L1 securing $500B of value?
By your logic then #Bitcoin mining isn’t trustless either. You could say « you need to trust the miners to include your transaction in the block ». The reason your transaction will be included is because miners are financially incentivized to do so. Same goes with pegging out your #BTC from a #drivechain. Honest miners will do it because that their interest to do so.
I say that nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m is wrong.
I dont see a contradiction.
