Nostr Web Client

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.

Cyber Seagull 2y ago

>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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

techfeudalist 2y ago

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.