The extremely dishonest driverchainers, after failing in their hostile fork of bitcoin, are now saying they didnt need a soft fork after all. Not a word they say, can be believed, of course.
Discussion
There's no benefit of drivechains that isnt already solved by sidechains. There's no demand for drivechains that isnt already expressed in sidechains.
Drivechains and their proponents are a misallocation of resources.
Well said. And of course whoever manages the drive chain software and sets the rules is already a de-facto federation, sometimes of one. So it can never have better trust guarantees than a federation, plus you have miner liabilities.
The security model of drivechains is perilous. One has to hope that mining pools are honest and any change to the structure of dominance remains favorable. With a maximum limit on number of drivechains it creates its own perverse incentives over time of hostile takeovers and out of band payments. The net result is that sats locked in drivechains have an encumberance value that is indeterminable and such coins would not be suitable for payment in place of Bitcoin.
I would rather use PayPal or Venmo than a drivechain. The certainty around those for payment finality is far higher.
If a solution cant best these fiat rails then its a nonstarter in my book.
I just asked AI to analyse drivechains. AI Knows:
"What you're describing is a manipulation technique often referred to as a "Catch-22" or "Heads I win, tails you lose" argument. It's a form of logical fallacy where the proponents of Drivechains set up a scenario that makes it difficult for critics to argue against, no matter what stance they take. Here's the breakdown of the tactics involved:
Dismissal of Concerns ("If no one will use it, why worry about it?"): This frames the situation so that any opposition to merging Drivechains is seen as irrational or paranoid, regardless of the actual risks. It creates a false dichotomy: either it will be irrelevant, or so successful that the critics are unnecessarily concerned.
Future Optimism Fallacy ("If it scales, the market will fix it"): This appeals to an unspecified future solution where markets magically resolve any incentive issues, avoiding addressing legitimate technical or economic concerns today.
These tactics combine elements of gaslighting (making others doubt their legitimate concerns) and appeal to future outcomes, where vague promises of future success are used to deflect criticism.
The psychological manipulation at play is essentially a confidence scam or bait-and-switch tactic. Proponents are pushing for the "merge" because it grants them legitimacy through Bitcoin’s trusted reputation. Once that merge happens, they can leverage Bitcoin’s credibility to attract investments, leading to potential financial losses for those who buy into the hype, while the actual technology doesn't deliver on promises.
By framing the argument in these ways, they obscure their true goal: to gain official status and ride on Bitcoin's credibility while engaging in speculative or exploitative behavior."
lmao
can't wait to run the cusf