BIP-300 #Drivechain debates seem to be trending on x.com again. It seems drivechain supporters have figured out if you say controversial things it gets more engagement. The more angry btc influencers get, it actually ends up increasing education/awareness of drivechain. It’s kind of like the streisand effect. 
Discussion
I haven’t been following this debate but I’m curious to know if there is a risk for this to turn into a fork war? What are the odds? #Bitcoin #Drivechain
Not sure tbh. I think it’s unlikely Paul would wish for splitting of btc community. I think his aim is make sure to get consensus’s first.
That seems like a reasonable approach but sometimes forces in motion can’t prevent the outcome to lead to a fork.
There really hasn’t been a convincing counter argument that hasn’t been addressed against the Bip.
The classic response is “miners can steal and MEV” concerns. But when you realise miners can also steal from lightning channels. If you worried about mining centralisation then you probably shouldn’t be a bitcoiner lol.
People still split their penises to appease the kangaroo gods.
Stupid wars happen all the time.
If one happens you can be sure its funded by Liquid and competing projects who stand to lose. It will even be fought by projects who have nothing to lose but think they do because some mid twitter influencer picked a side. LN would be able to offer a better network on a side chain, such as lightning.
Checkout drivechain.xyz
Miner activated soft fork was such an ace card. Paul must have been sitting on that little Yugioh monster card for ages.
It was the nuclear option.
When the arguments against Bip-300 became so obviously empty, vicious and biased by devs of competing projects whom non-technical Bitcoiners trust, he pushed the big red button.
Don't trust, Verify. IS bitcoin.
"...miners can activate bip 300 and sovereign nodes remain sovereign. Nothing changes for them..."
A miner activated soft fork can create a new transaction type without everyone else patching their nodes? Can't we just try normal merged mining for a while and not jump to a consensus change for side chains? If miners want to run side chains can't they just run a node for those, is that a bigger ask than pushing a masf? If side chains pick up adoption then drive chains will be an upgrade that saves space on chain so the upgrade will be obvious, and if they don't then we haven't lost anything.
Rootstock has been merge mined by bitcoin miners for the last 5+ years.
Interesting, it looks like these don't get much usage, maybe trying to measure them requires different tools. Eh, I guess if a MASF comes there's nothing I can do about it, I just hope you guys know what you're doing.
Softforks were created because reaching consensus is hard. One last softfork that will enable anyfuture project to not need consensus and just launch a sidechain is a small price to pay for a few elite priests of bitcoin to feel butt-hurt for a while.
The post Drivechain world, like 5 years down the road will look back on all these anti-bip300 shitty arguments the way we wonder why doctors once did not wash their hands.
It's comparably that small of a change to core with that much reward. Also, if it turns out to be a mistake, we can gonback, with only those who chose to buy in to a side chain affected.
Doctors can still choose to stop washing their hands.
I have no love for influencers. If its 5 years in the future that's great, I'm only concerned because I feel like I heard drive chains on a podcast like once and now out of nowhere its like this has to be done now. I hear these arguements about new bips and its "we've been working on this for x years and its great so were just going to go nuclear", like CTV, bro I've never even heard of this before! Paul explained drive chains once on wbd, and he did a terrible job (not an attack on him, I just had no idea what he was talking about); it was quiet for like 6 months, and now its OK MASF PRESS THE RED BUTTON! Dude, if I had put my phone down during this vacation I'd still have no clue what a drive chain is. All I'm saying is there should be more public awareness campaigning before activating soft forks. I get from some peoples perspective this has been brewing for a long time, but for many of us it hasn't.
Drivechain supporters have always been around. I think they have just been more loud and causing certain maxis to get outraged which actually increased awareness of drivechains to the haters dismay 😂
I believe you. I haven't heard much discussion around it.
Fair enough. All the info is out there though, countless videos, interviews and even academic papers. This is the public outreach. It got a boost recently because of a respected core dev asking for input on a pr.
We canbonly show you the door. You have to walk through it.
The idea is simple, does not hurt bitcoin. Opposition is ego driven and a threat to vested interest projects who have sunk years in overly complicated half measures.
Also, hopefully the activation happens sooner than five years, within a year would be great. All the groundwork code and proof of concept is done. My comment on five years is to say five years from activation, it will have been a giant nothing burger to regular bitcoiners. People against it now for dumb reasons (some are valid concerns) will be embarassed by their tweets.
To put it in perspective, I spent more time considering a $50 buy for a used computer than I've spent hearing about drive chain, that's a problem. I had hoped to listen to guys take, I think I understand it from a technical perspective, I'm not against the idea, but I have reservations and I'd like to see it discussed some more.
All your reservations have been discussed for several years and replied to exaustively.
If you come up with something new i will zap you 50$
I am probably most concerned about those other projects, I suspect there may be a tail risk to bitcoin being ossified before a few major updates, because people would rather use a side chain instead.
I imagine you could create a sodechain with 10MB blocks and it would run just fine, the fees would be nonexistent, the transactions per second would be huge, it would still be pegged 1-1 with bitcoin, it would take years before bandwidth or storage would be an issue. Everything sounds great, I'd even argue that such a thing is necessary whether its us increasing the L1 block size or a side chain. However, that is still not a solution to scaling bitcoin to 8 billion people, even if you put lightning on top. There are other upgrades that bitcoin is still going to need to scale that hard, we need people willing to go into the depths of mathematics and cryptography and dig out things like cross input signature aggregation, stuff that condenses data stored on chain to its tiniest possible size; then we can see the maximum benefits from things like side chains or block size increases.
So then, "its not because we want shitcoins on bitcoin", " its not because its fixes scalability", you could use it for testing improvements, but improvements should be carefully designed that we know they work before deployment, we shouldn't be throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. We have litecoin and testnet for those purposes.
What is the argument for drive chains? Its a serious question, I remember in Paul's episode he said its great because it kills shitcoins, but now that'd not the argument, arguments evolve that's fine. But what is the argument today, what do we actually stand to gain? A monero side chain certainly sounds cool, no knocking that, I guess some people really like smart contracts too, is that what you guys are after?
Anything they would find in that research could be incorporated into a side chain, tested in real world conditions without first applying to a priesthood for approval. If it has real uses and becomes bigger and better than bitcoin, thats a good thing. It means some new thing has convinced even OG bitcoiner to join it. Bitcoin will still be around, on the main layer and won't go away because the L2 depends on it.
We don't write our thoughts on paper using quill first, then upload them to nostr. We DO still use letter, words and numbers to communicate thoughts.
If the wright brothers waited for a commity of core devs to approve their plans, create fluid dynamics and survey the whole world to see who wanted airplanes, we would never have gotten off the fucking ground.
drivechain allows market ecosystem testing of new features without endangering main net, and actually contributing fees to its security.
What Paul means when he says "It kills altcoins" was his appeal to the toxic maximalist. In reality all it does it take away the main justification for them. People may continue to use them, but the founding logic is removed. People think Paul means it brings shit coins to bitcoin. It does not, and in other interviews he describes that he thinks it won't.
->It rug pulls altcoins.<-
Monero Bullet proofs ? We get that in MoneroSide
Zcash zero k proofs ? We got that in zcashSide.
Why go outside bitcoin when what you want to tryout can be done within the ecosystem, with an escape route back to bitcoin.
Again, its NOT about bringing shitcoins to bitcoin, it's about removing their technical reasons for existing in the first place.
The above is about pauls words on shitcoins, not a total justification for DC.
We want DC to serve as a lifeboat against any future unpredicted technology or project that might threaten main bitcoin. You and i cannot know one will never exist, this is insurance. Claiming otherwise is a claim to godhood omnicience.
We want to invite all that network hashing being wasted on altcoins back onto bitcoin, making everyone more secure. They might not accept, but even having the option in bitcoin on a sidechain is a huge insurance.
We want new features to be tried out without having to go to every fucking twitter influencer troll and beg. or get onnour knees and suck some type-a core dev priest "just humbly keeping core chugging along".
Do YOU want Mideval Europe or Revolutionary America ? Which one was more free market and lead to the greatest Tech and Living standard increase in human history.
It certainly seems like its better than an atomic swap on bitcoin to monero, because in those you need someone on the other side and you have an anonymity set of few people. Falling asleep trying to get through guys take, I did find a few things wrong with his analysis already though, I'll have to try again tomorrow. I can understand the idea of wanting a way to test new features in a way that has real economic impact without risking the network, I still think that's what litecoin is for, but maybe there's a point between *this is highly experimental* and *we are ready to merge this with core*, maybe a *this has covenants enabled and people are using it for some advanced custody stuff that most people aren't ready for* or something, and litecoin just doesn't fit the bill.
It's also better because monero swaps are one way which is sus and annoying.
The testing i mean is also not exclusive to testing for future integration into core. It could be testing of quantum (i don't mean resistance) stuff forever outside of core. Instead of going outside of bitcoin you get attention and capital/user support from within.
Have a good night then. I'm in convo with Guy to help clear up some of the stuff he isnstucknas best i can, and we are all on a journey of understanding nwhat this new thing is, bitcoin.
Anytime you trigger Saif you edge the intellectual barycenter in your direction. Brilliant.
Well said. I like saifdean’s work and his books. But calling drive chain shitcoins is an invalid argument. Be good if he actually presented arguments against drivechain rather than just saying “shitcoin”.
Engagement seems to have completely backfired on him, revealing his bcasher backings and totally misalligned VC incentives. BIP 300 ngmi
VC incentives?
So lightning, nostr, RGb and liquid never received any fundraising then?
VC from shitcoiners who bash BTC all day is what I meant
Paul says it’s not a VC and the $3 Million that was raised was from OG bitcoiners with no expectation of return.
Also, what about shitcoins on Liquid, Taro, Taproot Assets, Coloured coins, Ordinals, Inscriptions etc. Samson Mow raised funds via an ICO token on Liquid for a video game but nobody seems to care about that in bitcoin community?
I have to ask was Satsoshi a shitcoiner, he did create Namecoin after bitcoin after all? Satoshi also said he envisioned seeing bitcoin scaling via side chains in 2011 on bitcointalk which is exactly what Drivechain/BIP-300 is.
Paul is desperate. He'll say anything at this point and it's very obvious.
As for the shitcoins on bitcoin. Mistakes made don't justify more mistakes.
Yep mistakes require solutions rather than be left ignored.
If ordinals ever take off again then mainchain fees could be impacted. Why not move all shitcoin activity to sidechain. Keep mainchain fees lower?
