Subnostr

I actually think that #drivechains would exactly prevent “degeneracy” from happening on the main chain. It would isolate it to drivechains and anyone would be free to partake or not in it without messing up with the primary use case of the base layer which is as you said, transfer of value. Don’t you think it’s a safer option than adding a bunch of additional OP codes on the base layer?

BitcoinStu 1y ago

You realize drivechains require new opcodes, right?

I think you should spend less time posting and more time studying bitcoin.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

Of course, not all opcodes would enable attacks on the base layer and thank you for the advice but you haven’t answer my question regarding recursive covenants. So you have no problem with recursive covenants and what they can enable such as parasitic on-chain KYC?

BitcoinStu 1y ago

I do not like covenants either, but as I have already informed you KYC can already be enforced using multisig. Covenants are not required for this attack.

LogicallyMinded 1y ago

Multisigs aren’t as flexible to enforce on-KYC that covenants would be.