you know there is dozens of liquid like chains out there right? all those ordinals and shit, yes, that was liquid style app, but liquid itself is like other chains that "anchor" on bitcoin or some other chain... drivechains also same shit, another chain that refers to bitcoin transactions
the reason why everyone is wrong about doing this nonsense is pretty simple:
- the data is not valuable enough
- there is no consensus on a side chain that can stop the chain from turning into a way of rugging retail, it depends on the worst people (the best people only need error correction, the worst exploit errors)
- blockchains have a very high security cost to maintain a global, single, ordered transaction log
- blockchains are inherently slow and have limited bandwidth because they have to cater to so many users
proof of stake, just to go slightly off on a tangent, is bullshit also, the reality is that chains that use it have a scaling problem with the number of validators (miners) and it's just one way to settle this problem, there is others, that have been little explored, like one idea i have of using a proof of work chain to create a validator queue ahead of time, but that suffers from chain consensus security budget problems as well. IMO, forget the stupid "public" part, replicas are part of a consortium and the consortium will assign someone to auditing the chain data created by consortium members, and when it comes down to it, that's a multinational corporation, more or less, maybe you can subdivide it to also be regional subsidiaries as a second level of hierarchy
Lightning Network is also a type of consensus, where instead of having a set of miners/validators, you have peers who form a relationship with each other called a "channel", and operating this channel involves a game theoretically secure consensus with a very low overhead and several defenses in the game structure to defend against the prisoner's dilemma (whether to try to cheat the other party)
so far i have mentioned several types of consensus:
- the nakamoto consensus used in bitcoin, which has the special property of enabling an unbounded number of competing miners, thus allowing a massive security budget (which users pay for in fees and inflation) - this is theoretically what a "proof of work" side-chain or drivechain could be also, but due to game theory, the tendency is for all mining power to consolidate towards one chain, irrespective of differences in proofs used - see nicehash
- practical byzantine fault tolerance (used in combination with proof of stake because it cannot scale much larger than 99 replicas)
- layer two state channels, which use strong positive incentives and distribute connectivity - the downside is the network is a fog of war and creating paths to move state balance back and forth can sometimes fail due to offline nodes (which will ultimately be solved by creating redundant multipath payments, which are a whole can of worms)
there is bitcoin, there is private, corporate federated byzantine agreements, and there is state channels
everything else is irrelevant, and is trying to blend things together that cannot be mixed, eg "public" proof of stake is really only suited to a collusive, corporate structure, just as was intended for the pBFT protocol, and that's what always happens, eg ethereum, eg cosmos, or has a false marketing trying to sell a system as having a benefit for transaction scaling when there is zero examples of a nakamoto consensus except for bitcoin succeeding, so, drivechains, liquid, *cough* bullshit, they can't succeed, because either hash power or "hypothetical paper value" consolidation leads towards centralization
i hope that helps you understand why i'm so salty about almost everything in "crypto" except for bitcoin and lightning... every other thing is provably stupid
