No. They are great.
Read all the bitcoin books.
Read this one.
Support the authors.
Support Bitcoin media.
My point is more along the lines of what Eric Weinstein asked on the WBD podcast.
We know the problems,
we know bitcoin might help.
What world are we actually building ?
Or as Zizek puts it: What happens the day after the revolution ?
I see maybe two chapters that tread on new ground.
Time will tell.
Best of luck.
#getdatmoney #teamLyn
"Everything apps" reduce what you can do. Purpose driven apps do one thing very well togethere, allowing you to do anything.
Unix philosophy
But not wrong
>The proposal gives power to miners that they don’t currently have.
More power over what ? The side chain or bitcoin itself ?
>power over the bitcoin network.
How ? How exactly does bip 300/301 do this. I want precise technical examples.
>What happens if miners drop support for a previously operating drivechain?
What happens if miners steal funds or act maliciously? The probability of these events might be low, but the risk of chaos if they occur seems high.
These are risks that exist right now from liquid. Censorship has always been a risk and has not happened (yet) for reasons outlined in the DC FAQ. Its not to their advantage. Also that is a decision for use customer/user of a project to make, not you as king of bitcoin.
>I’m operating from the principle: “First, do no harm.” It doesn’t matter to me what the potential benefits are if there are material risks.
As a hikikimori, someone who never leaves your home, drives a car, eats food made by others, your contribution to risk analysis should probably be ignored.
DC does the least harm between the options of doing nothing, continuing to soft fork band aid solutions directly on to main chain with unwanted consequences (taproot) or testing them out on a DC sidechain first through one soft fork. DC has far more upsides than down.
Holy shit. I was right. Zzzzzzzz
Saifdean is a grifter. A very smart and quick witted economist. He's like the person i was fucking at the time when bitcoin came out and said "Well the state will just buy up all the bitcoin and control it." But far less attractive and far worse tits.
I have plenty of rebuttles. This conversation devolved into flames because of switching apps and reading the drivechain FAQ you replied dumb shit i had just answered.
Behavior like that is worth insulting. Seriously stop replying and read something more than 140 characters.
Your analogies were about katanas and swiss army knives and melting gold. I met you at that level of description.
What do you mean by side chains are Decent enough ? DC allows sidechains without damaging bitcoin. If you support lightning and liquid, you support DC.
What do you mean by risk:use ratio ? The risks are quantized and the uses are unlimited so your ratio is n:8 which is nonsense.
>Maybe Drivechain *is the bees knees....
Oh, i see, you are from the 1800's. No wonder you are so lost. These fancy electric gramaphones in your hand are pretty gosh darn neat huh ?
> Bitcoin doesn't need to change to allow in/out 'trustless' escrow so shitcoins can exist on it in this manner
If the shitcoin exist on bitcoin with DC, what are they escrowing in and out of ? This what i mean you don't understand DC or even basic sentences strung together. Just stay out of commenting on bleeding edge issues, or read more and be less dismissive of proposals you don't actually understand.
If you had at any point said something useful or indicated the ability to understand new concepts, i would not have used "bad" words.
Dc is not a popularity contest, its a technology it doesn't care if you or anyone else have good feelings in your tummy about it.
It stands on its own merits and not the soothing public blowjob ability of anyone talking about, it does not fall because of vested interest promoting the boring catchphrases and dead mental memes you keep using that are not arguments against DC.
>my core heuristic is that if my hot takes are so dumb, repetitive and out of scope the other person uses language i don't like, i've won.
i gave good answers and you replied with nonsense. obvious troll
Let me guess. It skims on top of austrian concepts we already know about, includes modern examples of outrageous cantilion next to fancy data graphs, and macro mumbo. All along it implies but never directly asserts a moral failing on behalf of amorphous elites while proposing no concrete alternatives or risk taking vision but does mention bitcoin somehow potentialy, maybe, fixing all this through equally amorphous assertions. #ourgirl
DC would have prevented the inscription controversy and many others. If you would check the Drivechain FAQ you would see many other potential uses for DC.
But you are part of the maxi botnet, and will just keep veing toxic until poisoning yourself instead of reading primary sources on the project.
>"-This sounds like altcoin stuff. Not the hardest money ever created. You mentioned: banks, credit cards and houses to justify wanting Bitcoin to leave the main chain"
I did not, i used them as nontechnical examples to help you understand, not 1:1 corelations. A hash escrow is nothing like a centralized bank, but they both do store value in a secure place for you to take from later. I can only simplify this stuff so much before it breaks down. You have to meet me half way.
>Zooming coins in and out opens attack surface for unseeable attacks just like NO ONE saw Taproot leading to Ordinals.
Are you smoking weed ? DC prevents future errors like the ordinal side effect. It moves changes like taproot off chain. Several experimental bips have already been implemented in DC.
>No. You misunderstand Bitcoin. It's the hardest money ever created. Not a shitcoin. If you want something else, go use it. You're trying to make Bitcoin a Swiss army knife. Keep that stuff away from Bitcoin. It soils the name.
Are you a bot ? You just keep regurgitating the same catch phrase. Bitcoin is the hardest money because there will only be 21 million, not because the code never changes. With DC there is still only 21 million. The fundamentals remain.
>Any opening of attack surfaces is just that. Potential for unseen and uncalculable threats. Your reasoning that DC makes these able to be foreseen is wrong IMO. It doesn't. It just opens the surface.
ITS NOT OPENING AN ATTACK SURFACE, IT'S DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Increasing the protection zone between bad things and core !
>-Disagree. I haven't been convinced of it and it's not FUD. It's wanting to preserve the purest form of the idea of a digital P2P currency that is the hardest money ever created.
Dumbass bot just keep repeating the same dumbass saifdean catchphrase. Not one technical counter argument. Fuck off.
>-Nah. I don't buy that gatekeeping. People are allowed to want the purest form of money ever and have it as it is. They're justified to want it to be whoever they want. Just like you are justified to want Bitcoin to be intertwined with shitcoins. It's a disagreement of purpose based on opening unknown attack vectors, and purpose of the hardest money ever.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
>Risks and functions outweigh the use IMO at this point.
Of course they do, because you can barely tie your own shoelaces and can't read an FAQ.
>You're free to fork the project and make drivechain? Maybe that's an avenue you guys can follow...
You don't even know what the difference between a soft and hardfork is.
I'm done with your dumb.
BIP-300/301. I read through them, and there's some good stuff and some bad stuff. Here's what I got so far, and please do clarify if I got something wrong.
Summary: Seems like only minor changes to Bitcoin code are necessary, and theoretically it enables a lot of innovation, by placing said innovation in a drivechain rather than the mainchain. This also helps to scale, theoretically, because 256 sidechains can carry a lot more transactions than the mainchain.
However:
1) There is a lot of complex "game theory" going on. And because that touches on human behavior, it's hard to predict. Also, because the "game theoretical" aspects cross borders between mainchain and drivechains, and between users, sidechain miners, and mainchain miners, the resulting complexity isn't appealing to me. I'd say it's nearly impossible to predict what will happen once real money is in play.
Example:
The sidechains don't need to do the hashing, but instead buy mainchain block space with the fees they generate on their sidechain ("Blind Merged Mining, BMM"). That fee is paid to the sidechain miner, and the sidechain miner then uses almost all of that fee to buy mainchain block space. That presupposes a reliable exchange value between sidechain coins and sats, and that reliability is only alledged, not proven. How the exchange rate is supposed to be stable across 6 months escapes me, especially given how much can go wrong on an "innovative" sidechain. @bitcoinerrorlog
2) How the sidechain miners are supposed to reach consensus, given that they don't hash themselves but borrow hashpower from the mainchain, isn't described. Why wouldn't a competing miner create a high-fee withdrawal transaction (WT) that favors himself, then have it validated (albeit after 6 months)? How would the mainchain miner even notice that something bad is going on, if he isn't running a node? And why would he care, as long as that WT pays the highest fee?
3) It also isn't described, how a miner would acknowledge a new DC or new WT. Is that an automated process? In that case, my tiny RasPi might want to spam the network with DC creation requests (M1s), and occupy all 256 slots right at the beginning, precluding all DC development. So it can't be automatic, right? But what is the decision basis for a miner acknowledging M1s manually? Phone calls? Twitter? Reddit? Sorry if I'm being dense, but I just don't see it, and would be glad if someone could explain. Same for WTs (see above).
4) The whole concept being rather new, and a *lot* of innovation (experimentation) being unlocked, means that there is potential for a great number of unforeseen things happening. The validity of a WT (and its associated mainchain block) hinges on several non-obvious conditions, and different implementations could easily lead to a fork, if implementations differ across versions or repos. Such a fork could even be willingly caused by an evil sidechain miner inserting a 0-day exploit of the block validity logic.
IMHO, the "innovation on sidechains" argument is technically correct, but the "shitcoins will move to sidechains" narrative is wrong. The reason shitcoins exist is not innovation; that's just how their marketing departments push their scam onto the naïve. The reason for shitcoinery is scamming peopple out of their money, and truth (especially auditable, reliable, consensus truth) is anathema to them.
So, that's what I think of drivechains as of now. Happy to discuss, and very happy to be proven wrong. As long as the proof passes my reality check. Because IFF all those points are invalid or wrong, drivechains might be a Big Thing™.
Tagging a few parties here, who I know might help assess this topic: @adam3us @fiatjaf @truthcoin @bitcoinerrorlog @francispouliot nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j
Found it (miner consensus)
BIP-300/301. I read through them, and there's some good stuff and some bad stuff. Here's what I got so far, and please do clarify if I got something wrong.
Summary: Seems like only minor changes to Bitcoin code are necessary, and theoretically it enables a lot of innovation, by placing said innovation in a drivechain rather than the mainchain. This also helps to scale, theoretically, because 256 sidechains can carry a lot more transactions than the mainchain.
However:
1) There is a lot of complex "game theory" going on. And because that touches on human behavior, it's hard to predict. Also, because the "game theoretical" aspects cross borders between mainchain and drivechains, and between users, sidechain miners, and mainchain miners, the resulting complexity isn't appealing to me. I'd say it's nearly impossible to predict what will happen once real money is in play.
Example:
The sidechains don't need to do the hashing, but instead buy mainchain block space with the fees they generate on their sidechain ("Blind Merged Mining, BMM"). That fee is paid to the sidechain miner, and the sidechain miner then uses almost all of that fee to buy mainchain block space. That presupposes a reliable exchange value between sidechain coins and sats, and that reliability is only alledged, not proven. How the exchange rate is supposed to be stable across 6 months escapes me, especially given how much can go wrong on an "innovative" sidechain. @bitcoinerrorlog
2) How the sidechain miners are supposed to reach consensus, given that they don't hash themselves but borrow hashpower from the mainchain, isn't described. Why wouldn't a competing miner create a high-fee withdrawal transaction (WT) that favors himself, then have it validated (albeit after 6 months)? How would the mainchain miner even notice that something bad is going on, if he isn't running a node? And why would he care, as long as that WT pays the highest fee?
3) It also isn't described, how a miner would acknowledge a new DC or new WT. Is that an automated process? In that case, my tiny RasPi might want to spam the network with DC creation requests (M1s), and occupy all 256 slots right at the beginning, precluding all DC development. So it can't be automatic, right? But what is the decision basis for a miner acknowledging M1s manually? Phone calls? Twitter? Reddit? Sorry if I'm being dense, but I just don't see it, and would be glad if someone could explain. Same for WTs (see above).
4) The whole concept being rather new, and a *lot* of innovation (experimentation) being unlocked, means that there is potential for a great number of unforeseen things happening. The validity of a WT (and its associated mainchain block) hinges on several non-obvious conditions, and different implementations could easily lead to a fork, if implementations differ across versions or repos. Such a fork could even be willingly caused by an evil sidechain miner inserting a 0-day exploit of the block validity logic.
IMHO, the "innovation on sidechains" argument is technically correct, but the "shitcoins will move to sidechains" narrative is wrong. The reason shitcoins exist is not innovation; that's just how their marketing departments push their scam onto the naïve. The reason for shitcoinery is scamming peopple out of their money, and truth (especially auditable, reliable, consensus truth) is anathema to them.
So, that's what I think of drivechains as of now. Happy to discuss, and very happy to be proven wrong. As long as the proof passes my reality check. Because IFF all those points are invalid or wrong, drivechains might be a Big Thing™.
Tagging a few parties here, who I know might help assess this topic: @adam3us @fiatjaf @truthcoin @bitcoinerrorlog @francispouliot nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j
Interesting take. More competant than most.
> "Seems like only minor changes to Bitcoin code are necessary, and theoretically it enables a lot of innovation,"
This is practically an endorsement in the current quality of discourse on the topic.
>"There is a lot of complex "game theory" going on. "
As there is with bitcoin.
>"the resulting complexity isn't appealing to me."
It doesn't need to be. The systems needed to bring me chocolate icecream are more complex than you freezing water in your freezer at home and chewing it. Telling me i can't have icecream because you don't want it is authoritarian.
>"...How the exchange rate is supposed to be stable across 6 months especially given how much can go wrong on an "innovative" sidechain."
That risk is assumed by the customer and is not your job to dictate to someone else, their risk profile. Futures trading in oil and nickel can also not be predicted. Brokerages for trading in and out of a chain along with insurance and stop loss providers can develope by enabling DC. Also the "wrongness" in a sidechain is isolated to the sidechain and does not spill over into bitcoin, important to point out as this is also part of the risk profile.
>"2) Why wouldn't a competing miner create a high-fee withdrawal transaction (WT) that favors...." https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/#drivechains-security
>"3) It also isn't described, how a miner would acknowledge a new DC or new WT. Is that an automated process? ....Sorry if I'm being dense, but I just don't see it, and would be glad if someone could explain. "
Not being dense, a lot of info is spread over several websites and many tweets. I believe this is the current challenge being addresed by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28311
And if not there is a mention of a possible solution in a tweet i'm trying to trackdown.
>"4) The whole concept being rather new..."
its as old as liquid
>"Such a fork could even be willingly caused by an evil sidechain miner inserting a 0-day exploit of the block validity logic."
wut. So could any other fork of core like bch. Barely anyone uses those forks. Why is this relevant, are you new to open source and security audits ? I don't think you are.
>"IMHO, the "innovation on sidechains" argument is technically correct, but the "shitcoins will move to sidechains" narrative is wrong. "
Thanks ? This has been the DC position for a while.
nostr:npub1s5yq6wadwrxde4lhfs56gn64hwzuhnfa6r9mj476r5s4hkunzgzqrs6q7z can you please do a mastermind BTC discussion soon? Would love to hear you, Lyn, Joe, maybe Luke gromen detail your expectations for the next 5-10 years. I feel like opinions have drifted some in recent years. Also please explain drivechains, how worried we should be about it, and if there’s anything we can do. Thanks Preston!
oh boy, you're in for a bad time. Being informed by people who don't understand the topic, drivechains, and not doing your own research is shitcoin and eth behavior