BTW this isn't about drivechains. I'm neutral on that.
Discussion
👀👀
But could be.
Sounds good. An individual developer can do what they want with their software.
But #Bitcoin core needs to get on the same page with Bitcoin. #Inscriptions are a mess and a security threat, and the #blockchain's getting bloated. Apparently with things like #utxos.
Not sure what #drivetrains add to all this. But I have a feeling it's not neutral.
Wonder if I've been reinstated too.
I HAVE SINNED!
I wasn't banned for a legitimate reason and had to get in touch with Musk directly to get it fixed.😓
Oh, you were banned for legitimate reason all right. It's called doing the right thing..👏👍☺️
Definitely curious how they went down if willing to share. Did you have a contact close to him or something?
Yes. I guess "directly" isn't strictly correct since he was in the middle (my point was that it DID need to go through Musk to get resolved)
You know who's funding LayerTwoLabs?
Who?
You know who's paying DC FUD ? Liquid/blockstream and competomg projects like the RGB crew. RGB is also great but their args against DC have been spiteful ad hominems.
DC relegates Liquid to a counter party country club. Follow the money.
Who is funding LayerTwoLabs?
There's no consensus on DC and likely never will be. It's a distraction from covenants, which is what we should be discussing
Post more exclusive thoughts here, like Lyn does. That's how we get people to spend more time on Nostr than Twitter, if they get more value here
Looking forward to hearing what it is
Looking forward to seeing what you’re working on!
nostr:note16jp5e2pgac2wsus2ajjl2s0al6d0hlxx3d5jmjqz75mks3dcyx8qlf70j6
Ok
so that is you on twitter, you're in fact back???
* With the current state of mining centralisation, IMO it would be pretty dumb to send any bitcoins to a drivechain. There are better ways to burn bitcoins or donate to miners.
* But it's not my place to dictate what you can/can't do with your bitcoins, so if there's sufficient community support for drivechains, it should be available for those who want to use them.
* Drivechains were arguably a good idea back in 2017 with the risk of bcash splitting off, but that ship sailed a long time ago. I don't think there's a point now.
* Yes, L2L is funding my work on drivechain code. The code/PR is not an endorsement of drivechains. Many Bitcoin devs receive funding for their work. This is not substantially different.
Why are you neutral?
Drivechain is a no-go before broad SV2 adoption
Satoshis Vision 2 ?????
The only reason I hear for drivechains is so we can get all the shitcoiners into Bitcoin. Do we really want that? We're changing the incentive model of mining so a bunch of degens can do their scams with Bitcoin?
If that’s the only reason you’ve heard, then you haven’t heard enough.
Enabling hivemind, is probably the best reason to activate it for example.
What is hivemind and why does Bitcoin need it?
Bitcoin may not need it.
Let's assume it does not.
Hivecoin is a truth oracle powered by prediction markets.
Let's also asume only one person wants that and you do not.
DC allows bitcoin to stay the same but allow those who want hivecoin backed by their bitcoin to do so.
Bitcoin is the pastry cone, DC is the flavor of icecream. If you want vanilla, keep your vanilla. Bip 300 hundred does not affect your cone or vanilla flavor. But some people want strawberry, or chocolate. Me choosing chocolate does not take away from your vanilla.
Hivecoin, Jesus, more shitcoinery. And you're wrong, it does affect Bitcoin and everyone owning Bitcoin. It changes miner incentives. We don't, and can't, know how exactly, but it can lead to greater centralization in a number of ways. It's a risk that cannot just be ignored, particularly when there's nothing about DC that actually benefits Bitcoin. The main argument has always been "destroy shitcoins by enabling them on DC". I don't know any Bitcoiner who wants those degens leaching on Bitcoin. It's bad enough we got NFT inscriptions.
Not hivecoin, it's hivemind.
DC would have prevented the inscription controversy and many others. If you would check the Drivechain FAQ you would see many other potential uses for DC.
But you are part of the maxi botnet, and will just keep veing toxic until poisoning yourself instead of reading primary sources on the project.
Agree, people take conclusions without read anything.
It’s bitcoin, not a shitcoin. All coins on a sidechain is redeemable on mainchain.
But a sidechain can do much more than mainchan while never risking any of the coins there.
Well then, you are not paying attention, because there are many more.
There’s many more reasons.
Interesting perspective. Thank you for your honesty. I think we all need to reassess what we're doing with Bitcoin. Especially virtuous #fullnodes and #Bitcoin loyalist..👍
No one saw nor predicted Ordinals when Taproot was proposed and adopted. And look how controversial its been and, in fairness, it's not even "nefarious".
Drivechain seems like it opens attack vectors and surfaces for nefarious things that we may not predict nor calculate now.
I'm not against change. But preserving and securing Bitcoin's Layer 1 is... everything.
Federated sidechains do, essentially, the same thing as a Drive chain, except this way it preserves the base layer.
This is my current view and I'm not overly tied to it but zooming bitcoins in and out of the base layer seems like a large attack vector and changes the mining landscape.
Which, Satoshi intended to be more distributed and pleb based than it became. Miners have a LOT of influence and IMO it's not exactly always a positive. This is why Monero tried to make mining unprofitable and distributed. This always made some sense to me in theory.
Thoughts?
The drivechain proposal is a hack. It’s complicated and inelegant.
I agree that there seem to be no advantages to drivechains versus just creating federated side chains.
The risk to L1 far outweighs the benefits.
What are these risks ?
First: centralization of power
The proposal gives power to miners that they don’t currently have. Miners have a tendency to centralize. Giving them additional power could, for example, risk that centralized entities might gain control over the bitcoin network.
Second: risk of chaos
What happens if miners drop support for a previously operating drivechain? What happens if miners steal funds or act maliciously? The probability of these events might be low, but the risk of chaos if they occur seems high.
I’m operating from the principle: “First, do no harm.” It doesn’t matter to me what the potential benefits are if there are material risks.
>The proposal gives power to miners that they don’t currently have.
More power over what ? The side chain or bitcoin itself ?
>power over the bitcoin network.
How ? How exactly does bip 300/301 do this. I want precise technical examples.
>What happens if miners drop support for a previously operating drivechain?
What happens if miners steal funds or act maliciously? The probability of these events might be low, but the risk of chaos if they occur seems high.
These are risks that exist right now from liquid. Censorship has always been a risk and has not happened (yet) for reasons outlined in the DC FAQ. Its not to their advantage. Also that is a decision for use customer/user of a project to make, not you as king of bitcoin.
>I’m operating from the principle: “First, do no harm.” It doesn’t matter to me what the potential benefits are if there are material risks.
As a hikikimori, someone who never leaves your home, drives a car, eats food made by others, your contribution to risk analysis should probably be ignored.
DC does the least harm between the options of doing nothing, continuing to soft fork band aid solutions directly on to main chain with unwanted consequences (taproot) or testing them out on a DC sidechain first through one soft fork. DC has far more upsides than down.
Miners just have the power to include a transaction or not. They don’t currently have the power to validate transactions, which is the power given to nodes. We shouldn’t expand the power of miners.
BIP 300 / 301 would give miners the power to hold the network hostage by giving them control over funds and drivechains. They could potentially force through L1 software updates that benefit them or centralize power further.
Liquid isn’t bitcoin and I don’t care what they do. They are not the base chain.
And yes, in fact, I am a King of Bitcoin 👑. I control my node and there is nothing anyone can do about it. I’m unwilling to share my power with miners and I’m sharing this perspective with all the other Kings and Queens of bitcoin.
Everything you want to do with drivechains you can do with a federation. No need to risk the L1 network with this experiment.
It does the opposite. It opens one gate to funnel an attack through. An attack you can see for months down the line and prepare for.
Right now, we do not know where any attack might come from. We can keep handwaving away competing projects up until one kicks us in the nuts, or some internal error or consiete undoes BTC.
RGB is great for example, but it is playing catch up with all the proof of concept and market/brain/money theft Eth has taken away in the interim.
Drivechain allows us to experiment with any new proposal, keep core safe and say to any other project "we can do that,but better".
it is a moat around bitcoin that allows a strategic drawbridge
I appreciate the response and viewpoint. Keeping Bitcoin simple has ossified it though. Purposely, it has limited the attack surfaces. Which is why it's the hardest money ever created. Without this security, Bitcoin has nothing.
I think no blockchain could 'compete' with it due to a multitude of reasons but its due mostly because core and the idea of what core should be, is simple.
Usually the first ideas of innovation are the best.
This is where it's strength lies. It's simple, secure and it works as being the hardest money EVER.
Ethereum, Solana etc think, mistakenly, they do better things than Bitcoin. But they don't. Their L1's are not as robust and secure.
To me the ultimate test is there's nothing stopping any group from locking or holding Bitcoins up to be pegged in to a sidechain. It's like placing gold in a vault.
Drivechain sounds like it wants to melt the gold, invite the metal smith's into the plant and create alloys that might blow the whole thing up.
I don't understand the code of drivechain to evaluate the widening of the attack surface. But my question would be, for anyone, ethereum, monero, solana are hoping to be Swiss army knives while Bitcoin is a Katana. How do you justify whittling away the katana to add a corkscrew?
In the terms you use, it is not melting bitcoin or reshaping the katana.
Bip300 places x amount of bitcoin aside in a trustless bank, that can be taken from, if you want to leave the side chain project. Like using a house as a security against a credit card. It puts skin in the game where altcoins and other blockchains can just rugpull. This is the hashrate escrow.
Bip301 allows these other projects to mine their POW blockchain projects alongside normal miner block mining of bitcoin. This is BLIND merged mining.
These are two halves of DC and Paul's vision and research into what bitcoin could do. But we in the Pro-Dc camp would be happy if even just Bip 300 was adopted. we feel BIP 301 would be the logical extension for pow sidechain projects, but that can come later if it needs to.
Lets just focus on what Bip 300 enables. It allows the katana to keep being a katana. But after a softfork, (the soft is important because it means everything stays the same and is backwards compatible, like playing ps1 games on ps4) the katana is also now a machine gun, ready for world war 2. It can, if technology advances, also add surface to air missiles. This doesn't work with physical objects, hardware, but it does with software. We do not know, like the old samuras what future advance makes us, btc obsolete. Dc alows us a way to respond to these innovations AND keep the bitcoin we love.
Things you might want to add are a monero like simple privacy experience, or zcash like features. There is even an EthSide on Dc so their version smart contracts, if you want. All backed by btc.
if there are security holes or threats to bitcoin, technical arguments should be made on the open source proposal. DC has been around a longtime and these arguments have been answered for years already. All that's left so far is FUD. Big players stand to lose market share if BIP 300 is adopted. Names like blockstream and liquid (because its the same thing but open to you and not just big companies).
The project is open to real critisism, technical or game theoretic. But they must come from people who actualy understand DC first. Most people at this stage in the debate are dismissing it right away.
"Bip300 places x amount of bitcoin aside in a trustless bank, that can be taken from, if you want to leave the side chain project. Like using a house as a security against a credit card. It puts skin in the game where altcoins and..."
-This sounds like altcoin stuff. Not the hardest money ever created. You mentioned: banks, credit cards and houses to justify wanting Bitcoin to leave the main chain to "put skin" in the game for alt coins. No thanks. Sidechains do this fine. Zooming coins in and out opens attack surface for unseeable attacks just like NO ONE saw Taproot leading to Ordinals.
-And Ordinals are, essentially, alt coin fluff/garbage. So no thanks to open up attack portals.
"Things you might want to add are a monero like simple privacy experience, or zcash like features. There is even an EthSide on Dc so their version smart contracts, if you want. All backed by btc."
-No. You misunderstand Bitcoin. It's the hardest money ever created. Not a shitcoin. If you want something else, go use it. You're trying to make Bitcoin a Swiss army knife. Keep that stuff away from Bitcoin. It soils the name.
"if there are security holes or threats to bitcoin, technical arguments should be made on the open source proposal."
-Any opening of attack surfaces is just that. Potential for unseen and uncalculable threats. Your reasoning that DC makes these able to be foreseen is wrong IMO. It doesn't. It just opens the surface.
"DC has been around a longtime and these arguments have been answered for years already. All that's left so far is FUD."
-Disagree. I haven't been convinced of it and it's not FUD. It's wanting to preserve the purest form of the idea of a digital P2P currency that is the hardest money ever created.
"Big players stand to lose market share if BIP 300 is adopted. Names like blockstream and liquid (because its the same thing but open to you and not just big companies)."
-Anyone can propose and run a sidechain tbh.
"The project is open to real critisism, technical or game theoretic. But they must come from people who actualy understand DC first. Most people at this stage in the debate are dismissing it right away."
-Nah. I don't buy that gatekeeping. People are allowed to want the purest form of money ever and have it as it is. They're justified to want it to be whoever they want. Just like you are justified to want Bitcoin to be intertwined with shitcoins. It's a disagreement of purpose based on opening unknown attack vectors, and purpose of the hardest money ever.
Risks and functions outweigh the use IMO at this point.
You're free to fork the project and make drivechain? Maybe that's an avenue you guys can follow...?
>"-This sounds like altcoin stuff. Not the hardest money ever created. You mentioned: banks, credit cards and houses to justify wanting Bitcoin to leave the main chain"
I did not, i used them as nontechnical examples to help you understand, not 1:1 corelations. A hash escrow is nothing like a centralized bank, but they both do store value in a secure place for you to take from later. I can only simplify this stuff so much before it breaks down. You have to meet me half way.
>Zooming coins in and out opens attack surface for unseeable attacks just like NO ONE saw Taproot leading to Ordinals.
Are you smoking weed ? DC prevents future errors like the ordinal side effect. It moves changes like taproot off chain. Several experimental bips have already been implemented in DC.
>No. You misunderstand Bitcoin. It's the hardest money ever created. Not a shitcoin. If you want something else, go use it. You're trying to make Bitcoin a Swiss army knife. Keep that stuff away from Bitcoin. It soils the name.
Are you a bot ? You just keep regurgitating the same catch phrase. Bitcoin is the hardest money because there will only be 21 million, not because the code never changes. With DC there is still only 21 million. The fundamentals remain.
>Any opening of attack surfaces is just that. Potential for unseen and uncalculable threats. Your reasoning that DC makes these able to be foreseen is wrong IMO. It doesn't. It just opens the surface.
ITS NOT OPENING AN ATTACK SURFACE, IT'S DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Increasing the protection zone between bad things and core !
>-Disagree. I haven't been convinced of it and it's not FUD. It's wanting to preserve the purest form of the idea of a digital P2P currency that is the hardest money ever created.
Dumbass bot just keep repeating the same dumbass saifdean catchphrase. Not one technical counter argument. Fuck off.
>-Nah. I don't buy that gatekeeping. People are allowed to want the purest form of money ever and have it as it is. They're justified to want it to be whoever they want. Just like you are justified to want Bitcoin to be intertwined with shitcoins. It's a disagreement of purpose based on opening unknown attack vectors, and purpose of the hardest money ever.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
>Risks and functions outweigh the use IMO at this point.
Of course they do, because you can barely tie your own shoelaces and can't read an FAQ.
>You're free to fork the project and make drivechain? Maybe that's an avenue you guys can follow...
You don't even know what the difference between a soft and hardfork is.
I'm done with your dumb.
Usually know I've won an argument when the other person can't articulate their points and can default to name calling and swearing. Bad look. 😬
My points are salient. If they're so utterly wrong you should be able to easily dismantle them. I'm not overly tied to my opinion.
Sorry you got triggered into swearing and insults. I'm thinking it drives my point home even further if this is the sort of ethos and attitudes around drivechain...
Roger Ver used to rage and throw insults like this too back in the BCash days. I say you guys follow suit. Hard fork Bitcoin, call it "Bitcoin DC".
I'll send you some sats as seed money even.
>my core heuristic is that if my hot takes are so dumb, repetitive and out of scope the other person uses language i don't like, i've won.
i gave good answers and you replied with nonsense. obvious troll
No. I just see the risk:use ratio and a LOT of us are in the same view. Your analogies were about Air missles, Playstation and credit cards.
I appreciate your effort but speak about the code changes directly without jargon maybe? Or articulate WHY it's even needed. Sidechains and L2 seems decent enough.
My repeated point about it being the hardest money ever created was illustrating that something incredible has been invented. And it's working! If we implemented every gOoD iDeA to come along the Bitcoin would be Solana or Shiba Inu.
Bip300 isn't a small change and augments the use case considerably.
Maybe Drivechain *is the bees knees but yeah, yelling and name calling gives off Bcash vibes.
Bitcoin doesn't need to change to allow in/out 'trustless' escrow so shitcoins can exist on it in this manner.
And if it does you're doing a bad job of explaining it.
Your analogies were about katanas and swiss army knives and melting gold. I met you at that level of description.
What do you mean by side chains are Decent enough ? DC allows sidechains without damaging bitcoin. If you support lightning and liquid, you support DC.
What do you mean by risk:use ratio ? The risks are quantized and the uses are unlimited so your ratio is n:8 which is nonsense.
>Maybe Drivechain *is the bees knees....
Oh, i see, you are from the 1800's. No wonder you are so lost. These fancy electric gramaphones in your hand are pretty gosh darn neat huh ?
> Bitcoin doesn't need to change to allow in/out 'trustless' escrow so shitcoins can exist on it in this manner
If the shitcoin exist on bitcoin with DC, what are they escrowing in and out of ? This what i mean you don't understand DC or even basic sentences strung together. Just stay out of commenting on bleeding edge issues, or read more and be less dismissive of proposals you don't actually understand.
If you had at any point said something useful or indicated the ability to understand new concepts, i would not have used "bad" words.
Dc is not a popularity contest, its a technology it doesn't care if you or anyone else have good feelings in your tummy about it.
It stands on its own merits and not the soothing public blowjob ability of anyone talking about, it does not fall because of vested interest promoting the boring catchphrases and dead mental memes you keep using that are not arguments against DC.
It's also not that I just don't like your language. I'm just not about name calling and swearing at ppl with different views. Twitter is more that vibe tbh.
And I find usually people do this when they've lost an argument and have no other rebuttle or explanation and are triggered someone else has a different view. 🤷♂️
I have plenty of rebuttles. This conversation devolved into flames because of switching apps and reading the drivechain FAQ you replied dumb shit i had just answered.
Behavior like that is worth insulting. Seriously stop replying and read something more than 140 characters.
Instead of *
Haha. Opened Twitter and saw this.
Saifdean is a grifter. A very smart and quick witted economist. He's like the person i was fucking at the time when bitcoin came out and said "Well the state will just buy up all the bitcoin and control it." But far less attractive and far worse tits.
Literally everyone predicted it's possibility.
Wtf are you talking about?
Idiots got caught off guard & thought their "game theory" or "incentive models" would rule the possibilities out.
Refreshing perspective.
Appreciate your perspective Luke. I'm also not a fan of drivechains but a huge fan of permissionlessness. This is the way.