It is true that a 51% attacker can steal from the drivechain escrow. Of course, your funds will only be at risk if you put them on a drivechain, the 51% attacker would have to rewrite history to steal mainchain funds.

I don't think it follows that this increases centralization pressure on miners.

Here's how I think about it: If an entity manages to get 51% of the hashrate they can orphan blocks and win all block rewards from then on, censor transaction, increase transaction fees arbitrarily etc. Bitcoin just doesn't work if any entity controls 51% hashrate for long. Whether it's hashrate escrow funds or all future block rewards the prize for a 51% attacker would quickly become worthless since the value of Bitcoin would fall when people realized that mining was controlled by one entity.

So there's really no rational pressure for miners to centralize (as it would ruin Bitcoin's value prop). Each miner wants more hashrate but also wants Bitcoin to remain decentralized (so that the block rewards they earn continye to have value).

Speaking for myself only, my primary concern about Drivechain has to do with the peg-out mechanism.

Since miners vote on withdrawals with hashrate, a 51% attacker can sweep escrowed funds. This is a new power that such an attacker did not have previously. It breaks the your-keys-your-coins contract or Bitcoin in a new way because such an attacker doesn’t have to rewrite history to carry it out.

Increasing the centralization pressure on miners is a risk worth serious consideration. Unfortunately, Drivechain proponents seem not to recognize this risk, claiming instead that Drivechain is risk-free for mainchain users.

We already have that basically

I think you overestimate your importance

What am I missing?

What am I missing?

If enough people start using it, it’ll provide better privacy for all LN users. Not just Zeus users.

This is an exciting one. No one else is offering this functionality at the moment.

lol that is not why I do not support a drive chain fork

and if you think I don't support as many privacy tools on bitcoin as possible then you have not been paying attention

lol that is not why I do not support a drive chain fork

and if you think I don't support as many privacy tools on bitcoin as possible then you have not been paying attention

disclaimer: currently deploying millions of dollars to support the nostr ecosystem via opensats and ten31

Except it’s not permissionless. Changes to Bitcoin require permission from the developers, the miners and, ultimately, the users.

Drivechains are a novel concept, however they are a solution looking for a problem where there is no demand.

Coupled with the lack of trustless peg-out and opportunity for abuse, what you’re left with is a threat vector in which the risk outweighs the benefit.

What is Layer 2 Labs path to profitability to provide return on the $3m to its investors?

Personally, it’s a nack from me. I wouldn’t care if Satoshi himself wrote the BIP proposal.

For many years I thought the next great Bitcoin Schism would be around privacy.

Now it's looking like it might be around enhancing permissionless innovation in general.

Not sure if you're referring to Drivechains here, but is there a custom signet running that yet? Along with some actual working defi examples.

good shit takes time to build out and they are moving incredibly fast - pretty sure primal onboards more users than any other nostr client within a few years - and they will do it responsibly all out in the open

and if I am wrong about that then nbd since you can use any nostr client you want

(You see how this post is a quote?)

that’s not how it works. opt-in is cope

come-on man that’s the whole point of the BIP. someone’s gotta hold the bag in the end and it’s gonna be the bitcoiner version of LUNA/UST