Please help me understand the risks better. All I’m hearing at the moment is that people don’t want sidechains to use BTC as a native currency. How that negatively impacts bitcoin is unclear.
Discussion
Good luck fellow traveler. The exact issues ellude me as well, but in general its always best to err on the side of not changing bitcoin because you never know how it will turn out. Unlike centralized systems, we have no reset switch.
True, but I think part of the drama is that this soft fork can be done “silently” - by miners - making it difficult to stop or prevent.
Sidechains cant have BTC as a native currency. They all are their own token even if named similarly and with 1 for 1 pegging like Liquid or anything else built with Elements. Drivechain is a different approach than peg-in/out that Liquid uses but it still has a process to get into and out of that sidechain. But instead of dealing with a discreet federation, its vetted by miners via hashrate escrows. Theres a limit of 256 slots making them rare and they can only be facilitated by miners. A normal user can not make or manage their own sidechain with drivechain. Its a centralized permissioned protocol.
I don’t mind schemes that generate more miner revenue if it doesn’t impact *my* bitcoin. If I ignore these drive chains, could they have any impact on me?
As a user cresting transactions like today? No direct impact. For node operators, marginal resource need, but well short of that from other changes made in the past.