Are you a chat bot ?
Drive chain contributes tonlomg term stability by reducing the changes to bitcoin core. If we want to try new things they can be done on a L2 side chain instead. The exact opposite of your claim.
>i don't like the way someone speaks so their points are wrong.
what does "intractable" even mean in this context, why would you want to control him.
you're weird
Side chains will create more incentives to 51% attack in the same way doubling users will.
If more BTC users create more transactions, the incentives to 51% also grows.
The network and incentives to 51% have grown since 2009, are you also against that growth?
DC brings more eyes to the network, the 3 month public record, and more incentives to be good, for miners.
>decentralized liquid is more centralized than liquid
Mkay.....
On yesterday's live stream of the nostr:npub1w4dsvkv5hq73p4wm6gadpcxs6fwshcys44f5tnnzze2g3hfs2p0qn23vhw, we had a troll show up in support of Drivechain.
VC money is buying a lot of support from people.
As if VC money isn't funding the opposition. Liquid among other projects have a lot to lose.
This has everything. All the pros and cons over years. Cons are midway through the page btw.
Primary sources:
The difference between bip 300 and 301
DRIVECHAINāS SECURITY
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/drivechain/#drivechains-security
Why Drivechain Is Harder to Understand Than Previous Soft Forks: 3. NOVEL āACCUMULATIONā OF SECURITY
The main problem with drivechain is all the information about it is spread accross 5 or 6 different websites, and accross several years of tweets, and emails since 2016.
Also, the attack takes place in public for 3 to 6 months. So yes. DC is vulnerable to a 51% attack no one is noticing for 3 to 6 months. A lot more than DC is vulnerable to that level of coordination and ability to waste resources, and always has been.
Can you explain to me the difference between BMM, Blind Merged mining and Hash escrow ?
DC is a two part bitcoin improvement proposal. 300&301
300 came first, obviously, and 301 came later as an added bonus and logical extension.
In the above reply you are applying BMM and "securing the drive chain" to peg out, which i assume is what you mean by hash escrow. Which are not the same.
BMM does not need to be implemented by several types of technologies we might find on a sidechain. So if, out of 256 sideschains only 10 use POW and BMM, how are miners able to attacknall of them. I point this out again because if you think they still can there is a huge gap in understanding.
DC Peg outs are just like any other UTXO. Why don't miners "attack" any other UTXO. If they do or can, the bitcoin game theory or tech is broken and we have much bigger problems than adding one OP code to core.
Stronger at specific movements for a gym, that are mostly useless in real world scenarios.
The gym and workout industrial complex had us fooled for years.
Competing egos and projects.
Imagine pushing taproot down our throats but freaking out about one OP code addition.
New FSF video goes hard.
https://static.gnu.org/nosvn/videos/escape-to-freedom/videos/escape-to-freedom-720p.webm
Awesome, i love these.
My reply to nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev #bitcoin #drivechain #bip300 #bip301
Bitcoin Audible #760
This recap and response is based on just this episode, independent of previous or future episodes on the topic i have not listened to yet.
> Security model based on Miners vote
- Itās not, https://www.drivechain.info/blog/hard-to-understand/ number 3 : novel āaccumulationā of security.
> Underlining security of the above is not better than just raising blocksize, from the context of onboarding people unto the drivechain.
- The wording here is a bit off, but if i understand what you mean, it is better because we get to each have Bitcoin do what we want on L2 while it stays the same on L1. More veriety of tomato sauces increases overall pasta adoption. Only having chunky tomato sauce, reduces onboarding.
> Each new sidechain is a new softfork
- How ? DC is proposing one softwork (or two if bip 301 is adopted later) not one for each sidechain. One softfork of bip300 enables several sidechains, not several softforks (Not more or not many more soft forks may ever be needed again actually)
> You lose L1 key authority over a certain amount of bitcoin and give it over to miners
- For a certain amount of time, Or as is more likely only in the way that when you buy gold with fiat, you give over control of the fiat to whomever sold you the gold. Further, nothing prevents Bitcoin like sovereignty of the tokens on the sidechain, or after selling the tokens sending them back into your custody, or after several months returning it to your original wallet and custody. Bip300 is called a Hash escrow for a reason. Being smart contract based it is far less custodial than alternative such as mints and liquid.
> Random anonymous injection of hashpower can reorder history on the drivechain.
-Or bitcoin itself. Why doesnāt it. Read the whitepaper.
> If the entire side/drive chain goes away, the user canāt recover their peg.
- You need to decribe how this would happen. Iām going to assume you mean the project closes and disappears. In that case you wait 3 months or exchange out with someone willing to wait the 3 months for you. Risk of a drivechain āgoingā away should be in the users ability to decide after a cost benefit analysis.
> ~5 minute rant about being comfortable with a future base 1000$ fee for being a sovereign bitcoiner using other tools.
- Not an argument against DC especially if it can provide a market driven cheaper alternatives, your personal comfort with an arbitrary 1000$ or any other number is irrelevant to someone elseās choice and the market ability to deliver.
> I donāt think a bunch of different block chains all secured by the same miners that lose the āyour keys, your coinsā property, where real ownership is determined by a vote by miners [is the solution], it just puts the problem in a different place.
- Adding more blockchains is just one usecase. We donāt expect many new entire blockchains. Many other projects may never need to do that to scale bitcoin or provide useful features, such as a lightning drivechain. Even if true, it should be up to the invisible hand of the market and not what you think.
> Early drivechain adoption would not have placed us in a different place than we are now.
- Somewhat agree but this is conjecture. By definition we would have been in an entirely different place, a place with long since activated DC. That place being better or worse is unprovable and worst, political. What we do know is that DC is not new, has been hardened by the fire of critique for many years, and has functioning software. Other solutions are perenially on the horizon of scaling bitcoin.
> Adoption of a new currency is not a technological problem itās a mental shift, akin to adopting a new language.
- Great Quote
> The shitcoin wave was fuelled by people trying to recreate the resale price increase,ātoken go upā of original Bitcoin. DC would have done nothing to mitigate that.
- We will never know. But the DC position is that the justifications for so many shitcoins would have been neutralizedand by things like a DC port, the way Ethereum has an EthDrive port, which you later admit is a valid use of DC...so....
> DriveChains do allow adoption of legitimate usecase technologies such as XMR.
- my personal favorite.
> Nothing at stake problem, malicious miner can Blind Merged Mine attack exit transactions for all sidechains at once.
- No. Not all sidechains will rely on BMM or even POW for their security, let alone asic compliant POW. So how will they attack all sidechains including POW chains. ? Also, mining is used to secure the sidechain through Bip 301. But it just akes it easier, it does not change the game theory or dynamics at lay. Bip 300 out pegging as you call it is a simple txn broadcast to the sidechains UTXO and withdrawal is a UTXO, just like anyother. Iām not sure why your mental picture of DC requires it to break bitcoin rules in some hard to understand way.
>...which means all of the honest miners need to validate all of the chains to keep them all safe. Which means we are just moving the validation problem to a different place.
- If true, this would still be a good thing as that other place is one layer up away from a slow ossified base you never have to leave but can leave if you want to enjoy new things. The current state is you must comply with the consensus of dozens of other people on past and future changes to bitcoin core, main chain. As it happens there is a cost to supporting dead or harmful projects, a cost to not having used your resources on more productive projects. Again not all chain projects will work in such a way that they need bip301 or constant validation.
Look into gym rings.
I mean. The other stuff i've replied, notwithstanding. This is whatever the opposite of depressing is. I'm new to your podcastvand work. Will binge and deep dive on your perspective.
What do you mean by not good at pull ups ? Are you using a bar (hard on the wrists) or gym rings (more natural movement) ?
Nice. You're motivating me to get back into schedule.