It seems to me that the only point we should be focusing on is miner incentives, not what drivechains can or can't do.
I believe we need to maintain intellectually thorough discourse on how people feel mining incentives will play out.
Hopefully this is executed with long format writings, making points that are backed up by substance.
What we have now is tribalism on a topic that needs coherence, regardless of the outcome.
Miner incentives are necessary, but at what cost?
I mean you’re willing to bring in trade offs (shitcoinery) on L1 to justify miner incentive. Even if there is no shitcoinery, the risk of introducing a bug/complications or an attack vector to the main chain is huge.
Drivechainers claim that miner incentives on L1 wouldn't change, just increase profits.
From my understanding their claim sits on the idea that any sidechain created still uses bitcoins, and the only way to get bitcoins is by using the mainchain.
Also, I'm not sure about everyone up in arms about "shitcoinery on btc" as new tokens aren't necessarily created - rather just trustless pegging in Btc & then peg out just like LN.
Introducing a bug on the mainchain is what everyone is always worried about, as am I, but if we look at previous code changes,
Taproot,
Segwit,
There have been no critical bugs, & these upgrades were highly necessary imho.
The dude wants to bring ALL the altcoins to btc 😬 
Pretty sure he means any features of a desired chain can be had with a side chain, but BTC is the common denominator, no special token.
So if there's demand people will peg in BTC, vs generating fake demand with a fake token.
Totally get that he wants features like zcash, zkproofs and mimble wimble
But from what I heard the drivechains can introduce oracle issues to L1 (don’t shoot the messenger)
