The debate about Drivechains is mode political than it is technical.

In practice, every sane bitcoiner wants real sidechains to provide privacy, scalability, speed, more advanced scripting languages, and the opportunity for everyone around the world to own a UTXO and self-custody it in cold storage.

A Zcash sidechain would contribute towards fungibility. A big block sidechain can be used to open and close Lightning channels at the lowest price. An Ethereum sidechain can attract some projects that want to port their code to a more secure Proof of Work chain.

Lots of shitcoins would lose their purpose and get drained of use cases. The exchanges would no longer act as scaling layers to the same degree, as the users won’t have to worry about high fees for their withdrawals.

The 21 million BTC limit also remains unchanged forever, as the fees coming from sidechains would cover the security budget. No more discussions about tail emmission or inflation.

But the issue is that miners refeivr godlike powers in these sidechains and can potentially refuse to release the funds to users or else steal. According to the game theory, miners should follow the economic rationale that maintains their reputation and keeps their revenue source flowing.

But it’s hard to have guarantees when you deal with dynamic actors that follow their incentives and might think short-term.

Lots of parties don’t want miners to gain even more power/control. But the issue is not shitcoinery, that’s only the lazy deflection which doesn’t excuse anyone from not reading.