Nostr Web Client

After listening to nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev talk about #drivechains recently, I think I agree with his perspective.

The concept of miners voting for other coins is antithetical to the basis of Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. Human action means backing up your beliefs by taking making a clear decision. Voting is fine for unimportant things because it's a flawed a manipulatable system.

Committing to one path or another is how real value is determined. Anything less is sitting the fence. I don't have the technical background on this topic, but these decisions should be based on first principles.

What do y'all think? Is there something that I'm missing or am I completely off base in my logic?

#bitcoin #scaling #asknostr

Xtr3m3hodl 2y ago

The arguments I see on Twitter against drive chains are terrible.

It appears to me most folks on Twitter seem to favor any custodian as long as they aren't miners because it might break the incentive structure of bitcoin. The current state of Lightning is tending towards centralization because it isn't easy maintaining/running a node .

The semi/self custodial solutions would have to compete with the custodial ones and beat them in services offered to gain any considerable traction. It is way easier to self custody Bitcoin onchain than on lightning today.

Other scaling approaches needs to be on the table at this point. There would obviously be tradeoffs but that is the nature of L2s. If there were no tradeoffs, it would already be in L1. Alternatively the improvements lightning needs should be on the table. But there seems to be a lot of disdain for soft forks which I think mostly is as a result of ordinals.

Reply to this note

Discussion