I know we bitcoiners live in our ownmental ancapistan, but there's some shit going down.

I hope you have security and exit plans.

Remember, the last two wars killed off our best and brightest.

I'm extremely proud to announce that I successfully defended my PhD with highest honors.

Looking back at years of fundamental research in academia, I'm excited about the future. I plan to focus on Bitcoin R&D, the most impactful project my skills can contribute to.

- Dr. Calle

Side note, I'm convinced nobody at all sees my posts, and nobody did on my previous account either. It would be nice if I could generate a proof of work to improve my visibility.

Yes, I've added a way to request a quote.

finality and atomic swaps built in don't fit well with probabalistic finality either, it's already slow af with cosmos tokens crossing between chains, needs at least one hour and even then. someone made finalizer widgets for bitcoin at one point i think.

it's really a dead end, people have been up and down that road at least 3 times already, why now? probably to pump someone's bags.

and as a result of hearing mr guy swann saying affirmative things about old hat says to me there is nothing more worth hearing from him.

I have a hard time believing that last sentence wasn’t meant to be entirely derogatory - But regardless I’m glad you liked the Thunder Network episode.

Like I’ve said probably 100 times before, DCs are an interesting addition to the architectures of sidechains, but they simply aren’t a panacea, and it bothers me that people act like they are. Makes me feel like I’m not able to get honest, adversarial thinking discussion.

If you can’t have a conversation without cheap insults and dishonesty, then how could you possibly expect me to take you seriously?

I’ve gone out of my way to give DCs a lengthy and fair shake. But the proponents consistently refuse to discuss trade offs. Say anything about them negative, admit the obvious fact that there ARE trade offs, and suddenly I’m just an INfLuEnCoOr.

I’d be vastly more likely to continue discussion if I had any reason to think the opinion in favor of it were *sober,* but the amount of hand waving and “they can just run light clients” as if this completely negates the numerous issues I brought up is what makes this conversation impossible.

Anyone who bothered to listen to my show and the ridiculous number of episodes I’ve dedicated to going back and forth on this would know the truth. But if a cheap opinion of *me* is the best thing you have for arguing against my points, then there’s no progress to be made here.

I have no reason to continue a conversation with someone who can’t make a point without elementary school name calling.

Thanks anyway, hope you have a good day regardless.

Not my favorite wording but I agree with the thrust of this sentiment. ^

Bitcoin doesn't have a security budget problem. Scammers do..

Everyone with two working brain cells is in the NO! camp. There's no such thing in #Bitcoin as a security budget. That's total bullshit.

This is what has to happen, and will. Bitcoin has to be cleaned up, tightened up and locked down. Plus made more accessible to everyone.

We need to Murder! #inscriptions #ordinals #nfts etc. Drop #TapRoot. It's more trouble than it's worth.

Then suspend #transaction #fees indefinitely. "Bitcoin Doesn't Need Them". And if Bitcoin doesn't need them, then they're an unnecessary expense.

Lastly #Bitcoin doesn't need to scale. But if people want to scale the Bitcoins they own off-chain, that's their business. As long as it doesn't compromise or burden Bitcoin in ANY! way.

You're welcome..🧡😊🚀♾️🗽

Shitchains are a perversity aiming to destroy bitcoin status of a commodity

This isn’t even half of the issue though. Thinking that these are the only considerations is foolish:

• federations can be spread out across jurisdictions. Attacks are permissioned

• attacks on a hash lock are permissionless. Anyone can do it and they don’t have to have any stake in the sidechain whatever

• NONE of this does anything to solve the validation problem, because the only way to assume it’s secure, is if miners are validating everything, and if the only reason it is beneficial is because they don’t have to, then it’s not remotely secure.

• it seems that any attacker can issue a fraudulent transaction from the DC hash lock. And miners are expected to vote against it. Except that this again, presupposes they *are* validating every single drivechain.

— in other words we’ve dumped the validation problem of the *entire* DC ecosystem into their lap, said “don’t worry your don’t have to validate,” but then turn right around and demand they be the judge regarding what is and isn’t valid… demanding that they validate.

• a permissionless attacker in DC can attack literally *every* single DC that exists at the exact same time, with no cost to expanding the attack except the rejection of their block *if* other miners are validating the DCs. Except that if they aren’t, they may very well get continuous “yes” votes from major pools that are just default not caring and want to get fees, which immediately creates an enormous consensus battle that takes place entirely our raise of the chain - which is the whole situation we are trying to avoid.

• lastly, if we take the simple incentive that miners will maximize profits - the claim made for why they will force DCs on the network without consensus - then there is no reason for them to not steal from the sidechains. As participation is again permissionless, and it would absolutely maximize output. We are requiring *social* constraints to keep them honest, not validation rules - because theft is valid in the DC system.

This isn’t remotely as simple as proponents are claiming, and the complete refusal to admit significant trade offs is what has made me so annoyed. And like I said before, it’s not worse than a permissioned federation but it’s also mot clear that it’s any better at scale, and there is no solution to the validation problem here, it’s just *all* being dumped on miners and then hand waved away.

It's pretty tough to get privacy as the merchant on ln still, and forget any amount bigger than a few thousand dollars... coinjoins require a lot of thought and precision and keeping track of utxos, monero just gives privacy right out of the box easily...

I can see it I think... esp for noobs

No it doesn’t. It’s a very poor system for pegging in/out of a sidechain with arguably little benefit, and some differences I would consider worse, than a simple, widely federated multisig.

I also can’t see anyway that it solves the “not your keys not your coins” issue which it is so unambiguously claimed to do. It replaces keys with hash power voting, which introduces a major risk and uncertainty with miner involvement.

Miners are currently passive providers of security. There is no ambiguity or confusion about how they operate. The introduction of drivechains would suddenly require them to be active judges for an ecosystem of arbitrarily large & complex alternative networks.

Not only does it introduce complexities and uncertainties for miners by forcing them to be active participants, but if they choose to ignore it, then the whole benefit of the drivechain ecosystem - which is already questionable - even more pointless. Because it makes it not only a potential negative, but there’s no reason to consider it secure unless the majority of miners are willing to become active judges in a series of payment networks of unbounded size with unknowable validation costs.

After a significant amount of reading and digging into drivechains. I’m pretty firmly in the “no” camp.

The solution to the climate issue won't be electric cars, but less cars.