Nostr Web Client

Deploying #drivechains is certainly not the destination. It would add a platform to #Bitcoin for innovation to take place without compromising the integrity of the base layer. Of course, drivechains won’t provide new utility on day 1 to the end users. But it will provide liquidity and network effect to developers looking to extend the capabilities of #BTC.

What’s wrong with this approach?

Innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum, you need the proper environment for it to thrive.

This kind of discussion brings me back to another post I wrote recently about this debate being more about Bitcoin politics between BTC conservatism vs BTC progressivism than it is about tech.

#Bip300 #Drivechain

Rich Nost 2y ago

You suggest that the base layer won't be compromised, but the base layer carries is an emergent model of competing incentives that will absolutely be altered on the side of the miners. Paul has even speculated that a sidechain could dominate transaction volume, so the majority use case could actually have its security model wateres down to trusting miner custody.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

LogicallyMinded 2y ago

That’s the model #Bitcoin has chosen to take. If there is more demand for block space then you need to pay higher fees for your transaction to be processed. If you don’t like the fees you need to use an L2. #Drivechains won’t change this, although they could make fees more expensive.

I think #BTC maxis would agree that it is how Bitcoin is intended to work.

#Bip300 #drivechain

Rich Nost 2y ago

We are talking about a proposed soft fork. A soft fork is inherently SUGGESTING how bitcoin SHOULD work, not how it was intended to work.