Avatar
Modus
547fcc5c7e655fe7c83da5a812e6332f0a4779c87bf540d8e75a4edbbf36fe4a
The Revolution Will Be Self-Hosted. modusb.com

On their website it says it is self-custody, but I personally would not trust it. Coinbase very likely has access to the keys.

The most difficult way to address this question is to figure out whether Coinbase can be trusted - is the wallet closed source, is there anything in the fine print that says they can take your money, etc

The easy way is to download an open source app like Blue Wallet or Muun and move the funds over there. (If it's a lot of money then a hardware wallet is ideal. You can get a trezor for about $50.)

The debate about Drivechains is mode political than it is technical.

In practice, every sane bitcoiner wants real sidechains to provide privacy, scalability, speed, more advanced scripting languages, and the opportunity for everyone around the world to own a UTXO and self-custody it in cold storage.

A Zcash sidechain would contribute towards fungibility. A big block sidechain can be used to open and close Lightning channels at the lowest price. An Ethereum sidechain can attract some projects that want to port their code to a more secure Proof of Work chain.

Lots of shitcoins would lose their purpose and get drained of use cases. The exchanges would no longer act as scaling layers to the same degree, as the users won’t have to worry about high fees for their withdrawals.

The 21 million BTC limit also remains unchanged forever, as the fees coming from sidechains would cover the security budget. No more discussions about tail emmission or inflation.

But the issue is that miners refeivr godlike powers in these sidechains and can potentially refuse to release the funds to users or else steal. According to the game theory, miners should follow the economic rationale that maintains their reputation and keeps their revenue source flowing.

But it’s hard to have guarantees when you deal with dynamic actors that follow their incentives and might think short-term.

Lots of parties don’t want miners to gain even more power/control. But the issue is not shitcoinery, that’s only the lazy deflection which doesn’t excuse anyone from not reading.

"Lots of shitcoins would lose their purpose..."

Their purpose is seignorage, first and foremost. Drivechains do not fix this.

Replying to Avatar jimmysong

The Case for a Chain Split

The debate surrounding drivechains has been heating up, with proponents employing various tactics to garner support. This divisive issue echoes previous disputes in the Bitcoin community, such as the 2017 block size controversy. As such, we should consider what was then the definitive resolution: a chain split.

A significant portion of the Bitcoin community rejects drivechains, effectively blocking its implementation via a soft fork. Bitcoin's voluntary nature makes it resistant to hostile takeovers, despite claims that miners could force the change. Disagree with that last statement? Then let's put that to the test. We can resolve this posturing and propaganda by forking the code.

Here's how it would work: Code implementing drivechains would be released. Those who support the proposal can run this code. A transaction that goes against drivechain rules but adheres to pre-drivechain rules will trigger a chain split. Those running the drivechain software wouldn't be doing anything, but nodes that aren't can reject the drivechain chain by using the "invalidateblock" command. The result will be two distinct Bitcoins: one with drivechains and one without.

This approach was resolved the conflict we had in August 2017, when Bitcoin Cash split off from Bitcoin. Similarly, proponents and opponents of drivechains can either hold or sell their respective Bitcoins post-split. This would be a real-world test of control and game theory within the network.

I advocate for this split not just for potential profits, but also because it's a peaceful solution. It would let us see in real time how convicted the drivechain people are. Will drivechain miners support it if it means mining at a loss? A chain split would serve as a critical learning opportunity for the community, providing a clear answer to the ongoing debate. Ultimately, this will strengthen Bitcoin by showing the market how hard it is to change its properties.

So bring it on! Fork or shut up.

https://void.cat/d/SEbocwy3dabt6xJaaXM5Sk.mp3

Can't we just tell them to fuck off? A chain split would give them too much of our time and energy.

Nobody has a lamer wardrobe than Richard Heart

They make really good coffee in Redacted