On whether or not regulators would be against or in favor of #Bip300, I think the strongest case to be made is that they would certainly be against it.

Think about it. Bip300 could enable a #drivechain that allows bitcoiners to anonymize their #BTC through a trustless setup.

Regulators hate #privacy #crypto like #XMR but maybe they can live with it and afford to force exchanges delisting because the #Monero brand isn’t as strong as the #Bitcoin brand but imagine combining strong privacy with the reach of the Bitcoin brand. It would seem like a regulatory nightmare.

Regulators definitely don’t want a private Bitcoin to see the light of the day and for this single reason they would oppose Bip300 not support it.

Is the old “gay marriage devalues my straight marriage” argument?

Quick comments and summary on the #drivechain discussion between Paul and Shinobi yesterday

Shinobi's argument: It's easy and riskless to reorg the sidechain, so this will happen, perhaps frequently. This is not disruptive to the L1 chain. Therefore there will be a significant discount between the bids for the sidechain block and the nominal value of the sidechain block. This induces L1 miners to obtain the blocks directly, instead of accepting bids from sidechain miners, which are deeply discounted.

Paul: OK, fine, but the discounted value of the block should be near the opportunity cost, so not a huge difference.

My comment: Actually, the discounts and risk of reorg are quite different depending on whether you are an L1 miner or a sidechain miner, have more hashrate than other miners, are willing to collude with other miners, or have deep pockets in to destroy opponents in a dollar auction or war of attrition. Larger corporate miners or coordinated pools have a distinct advantage and can be more aggressive and less defensive in reorging the sidechain.

Shinobi: Now L1 miners who mine the sidechains get a premium over those who are accepting bids. This gives these miners a distinct advantage. In particular small-time miners are unable to run a sidechain node will be left out economically speaking, which tends mining towards centralization.

I didn't quite follow Paul's response, it seemed to me like he was saying, "well that's just how it works" and not recognizing that this would be pushing smaller miners underwater, and that this is a bad thing.

Leave #bitcoin alone.

Why take unnecessary risk ? #drivechain

Murphy's First Law:

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

That sounds like a slogan from communist russia.

No thats Bitcoin.

IF YOUR MONEY CAN BE CONTROLLED BY PLEBS IT'S FIAT MONEY.

Not one technical argument, just regurgitating other peoples shit.

"Seems like" is not a technical intuition. Its a feelings based approach. Use your brain and read the spec at drivechain.xyz

Is it better for people to have the choice between plain or chunky tomato sauce ? Yes. Consumer choice isbalways good. DC allows one small op-code addition to allow huge benefits at no risk to people who want vanilla bitcoin.

It doesn't hurt you and moves future changes to layer 2 where you can vote with your money if you want a feature.

It's not at all. It's a bad , spiteful techhnically dishonest video.

Drivechain is less intrusive than taproot.

OK, yes, that is better.

I don't think you need to have technical chops to be able to understand Drivechain, it is just a game-theoretical construct that makes Bitcoin much better if it works, not worse at all if it doesn't.

Maybe you need some technical chops to understand that all other scaling methods that rely on pure cryptography and Bitcoin script have horrible tradeoffs. Not saying they shouldn't be tried, everything has its place, but it won't get better than Lightning -- which is not great.

I feel your pain!!! So sorry

there should be a nostr art gallery @ #nostrasia

When in nature are you lying on your back lifting 100kg of metal into the air.

Almost all work to date on stratospheric sulfate injection has been limited to modeling and laboratory work.[citation needed] In 2009, a Russian team tested aerosol formation in the lower troposphere using helicopters.[131] In 2015, David Keith and Gernot Wagner described a potential field experiment, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), using stratospheric calcium carbonate[132] injection,[133] but as of October 2020 the time and place had not yet been determined.[134][135] SCoPEx is in part funded by Bill Gates.[136][137] Sir David King, a former chief scientific adviser to the government of the United Kingdom, stated that SCoPEX and Gates' plans to dim the sun with calcium carbonate could have disastrous effects.