Subnostr

Because the minor risk is worth having lightning like speed, custody and privacy without running both a bitcoin and lightning node.

Replying to

this changes nothing i said

How do miners split the withdraw transaction of a sidechain ? (bundled transaction hash)

And if they do, how does this steal funds ?

Replying to

explain why you think miners stealing is baseless- it’s become a meme phrase for you guys/paul but you never elaborate outside of UASF (in which case it is def not baseless).

i’m not saying others shouldn’t use it, im saying it does not work. my bet is that immediately upon activation it will be used to create a replacement for WBTC, will gain massive locked-in TVL over a short period before being rugged by miners (along with any other escrows).

it will turn so many people off bitcoin, all for something that was never gonna work in the first place.

Also, TVL is a shitcoin-crypto term.

Bitcoin and drivechain do not promise to lock away the value of your bitcoin.

A DC hash escrow is a promise to hold a UTXO in a common fund that is exchageable for x or y amount of bitcoin<->token. The value of either is not locked. It's more helpful to think about it as an atomic swap rather than shitcoin staking.

Replying to

i believe any meaningful amount of drivechain TVL will be stolen by miners voting for a WT^ transaction that splits the escrow by pool % hashpower- no offchain coordination required.

So miners split a bundled hash between several pools and.....

I asked within bip300 . Withdraws are live modifiable bundled hashes with public observation for 13000+ POLL votes.

These votes act as confs not history selection fyi.

Replying to

explain why you think miners stealing is baseless- it’s become a meme phrase for you guys/paul but you never elaborate outside of UASF (in which case it is def not baseless).

i’m not saying others shouldn’t use it, im saying it does not work. my bet is that immediately upon activation it will be used to create a replacement for WBTC, will gain massive locked-in TVL over a short period before being rugged by miners (along with any other escrows).

it will turn so many people off bitcoin, all for something that was never gonna work in the first place.

How do the miners rug pull. Please explain. Not in generalities.

I want specifics. Technicals. Based on Bip300

I will remind you, the burden is on you, since you made the claim.

Replying to

I am probably most concerned about those other projects, I suspect there may be a tail risk to bitcoin being ossified before a few major updates, because people would rather use a side chain instead.

I imagine you could create a sodechain with 10MB blocks and it would run just fine, the fees would be nonexistent, the transactions per second would be huge, it would still be pegged 1-1 with bitcoin, it would take years before bandwidth or storage would be an issue. Everything sounds great, I'd even argue that such a thing is necessary whether its us increasing the L1 block size or a side chain. However, that is still not a solution to scaling bitcoin to 8 billion people, even if you put lightning on top. There are other upgrades that bitcoin is still going to need to scale that hard, we need people willing to go into the depths of mathematics and cryptography and dig out things like cross input signature aggregation, stuff that condenses data stored on chain to its tiniest possible size; then we can see the maximum benefits from things like side chains or block size increases.

So then, "its not because we want shitcoins on bitcoin", " its not because its fixes scalability", you could use it for testing improvements, but improvements should be carefully designed that we know they work before deployment, we shouldn't be throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. We have litecoin and testnet for those purposes.

What is the argument for drive chains? Its a serious question, I remember in Paul's episode he said its great because it kills shitcoins, but now that'd not the argument, arguments evolve that's fine. But what is the argument today, what do we actually stand to gain? A monero side chain certainly sounds cool, no knocking that, I guess some people really like smart contracts too, is that what you guys are after?

What Paul means when he says "It kills altcoins" was his appeal to the toxic maximalist. In reality all it does it take away the main justification for them. People may continue to use them, but the founding logic is removed. People think Paul means it brings shit coins to bitcoin. It does not, and in other interviews he describes that he thinks it won't.

->It rug pulls altcoins.<-

Monero Bullet proofs ? We get that in MoneroSide

Zcash zero k proofs ? We got that in zcashSide.

Why go outside bitcoin when what you want to tryout can be done within the ecosystem, with an escape route back to bitcoin.

Again, its NOT about bringing shitcoins to bitcoin, it's about removing their technical reasons for existing in the first place.

The above is about pauls words on shitcoins, not a total justification for DC.

We want DC to serve as a lifeboat against any future unpredicted technology or project that might threaten main bitcoin. You and i cannot know one will never exist, this is insurance. Claiming otherwise is a claim to godhood omnicience.

We want to invite all that network hashing being wasted on altcoins back onto bitcoin, making everyone more secure. They might not accept, but even having the option in bitcoin on a sidechain is a huge insurance.

We want new features to be tried out without having to go to every fucking twitter influencer troll and beg. or get onnour knees and suck some type-a core dev priest "just humbly keeping core chugging along".

Do YOU want Mideval Europe or Revolutionary America ? Which one was more free market and lead to the greatest Tech and Living standard increase in human history.

Replying to

I am probably most concerned about those other projects, I suspect there may be a tail risk to bitcoin being ossified before a few major updates, because people would rather use a side chain instead.

I imagine you could create a sodechain with 10MB blocks and it would run just fine, the fees would be nonexistent, the transactions per second would be huge, it would still be pegged 1-1 with bitcoin, it would take years before bandwidth or storage would be an issue. Everything sounds great, I'd even argue that such a thing is necessary whether its us increasing the L1 block size or a side chain. However, that is still not a solution to scaling bitcoin to 8 billion people, even if you put lightning on top. There are other upgrades that bitcoin is still going to need to scale that hard, we need people willing to go into the depths of mathematics and cryptography and dig out things like cross input signature aggregation, stuff that condenses data stored on chain to its tiniest possible size; then we can see the maximum benefits from things like side chains or block size increases.

So then, "its not because we want shitcoins on bitcoin", " its not because its fixes scalability", you could use it for testing improvements, but improvements should be carefully designed that we know they work before deployment, we shouldn't be throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. We have litecoin and testnet for those purposes.

What is the argument for drive chains? Its a serious question, I remember in Paul's episode he said its great because it kills shitcoins, but now that'd not the argument, arguments evolve that's fine. But what is the argument today, what do we actually stand to gain? A monero side chain certainly sounds cool, no knocking that, I guess some people really like smart contracts too, is that what you guys are after?

Anything they would find in that research could be incorporated into a side chain, tested in real world conditions without first applying to a priesthood for approval. If it has real uses and becomes bigger and better than bitcoin, thats a good thing. It means some new thing has convinced even OG bitcoiner to join it. Bitcoin will still be around, on the main layer and won't go away because the L2 depends on it.

We don't write our thoughts on paper using quill first, then upload them to nostr. We DO still use letter, words and numbers to communicate thoughts.

If the wright brothers waited for a commity of core devs to approve their plans, create fluid dynamics and survey the whole world to see who wanted airplanes, we would never have gotten off the fucking ground.

drivechain allows market ecosystem testing of new features without endangering main net, and actually contributing fees to its security.

Replying to

QW

Maybe more education will help but this is all I think about when I hear someone saying we need to change.

You don't need to do anything. If Bip300 activates nothing changes for people who don't want to use it.

Did anything change for you last time Ben& Jerry's released a new soft icecream flavor ?

No ? Same thing.

JackaYouMo Fouko

Replying to

LogicallyMinded

The #drivechain #BIP300 debate is reminiscent of the 2017 block size increase debate.

Although both sides have technical arguments to support their position at its core, the disagreement boils down to whether #Bitcoin should be kept as it or be upgraded.

It’s all about Bitcoin politics: Bitcoin conservatism Vs Bitcoin progressivism.

Bitcoin conservatism will never die unless the conservatives lose the Bitcoin brand or the progressists succeed in building a Bitcoin fork that will surpass #BTC adoption.

Except its not because the "progressive" change in this instance actually conserves bitcoin, moving all future progressions off core.

The similarity is because the same ego's are involved using the same memetic tactics, which are doomed to fail.

Their side will lose because this time their arguments are not grounded in technical truth but ignorance and self-interest. Memes must be grounded in truth to work long term.

The Liquid-Rgb-tether faction pushing opposition are poisoning themselves.

Replying to

Bitcoin_To_The_Oblivion

To be honest, I don't know much technicals about drivechains but he lost me as soon as he started comparing drivechains with shitcoins. We don't want any shitcoin BS on Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin has bigger fish to fry.

> i don't understand this thing or what someone is saying about the thing i don't understand but i'm against it anyways.

🤦‍♂️

Replying to

i think the anti-BIP300 arguments get too convoluted (51% attacks, MEV?, creates miner centralisation).

keep it simple- the game theory of it fails. economically, miners are overwhelmingly incentivised to steal. i believe any meaningful amount of drivechain TVL will be stolen by miners voting for a WT^ transaction that splits the escrow by pool % hashpower- no offchain coordination required.

why turn bitcoin into a laughing stock?

This falls into the "I don't want to use it" category.

No one is forcing you to buy in to a sidechain.

Nothing changes for you with DC.

If someone thinks the risk of a miner stealing is worth the risk for features they like, that is part of their risk profile.

If bitcoin is about freedom, but not this opt-in minimal change that increases freedom, why be against it.

It's the equivalent of telling your neighbors they can't enjoy chocolate icecream because the store they bought it at my steal it, and just as unlikely once you understand the "miners can steal meme " is baseless.

Replying to

Sherry

why is the drivechain war suddenly so intense recently?

And I look up to check if our world has two moons

#1q84 #bookstr

A respected dev was asked (payed?) To work on the next stage, a pr

Quackomozucco

Replying to

I have no love for influencers. If its 5 years in the future that's great, I'm only concerned because I feel like I heard drive chains on a podcast like once and now out of nowhere its like this has to be done now. I hear these arguements about new bips and its "we've been working on this for x years and its great so were just going to go nuclear", like CTV, bro I've never even heard of this before! Paul explained drive chains once on wbd, and he did a terrible job (not an attack on him, I just had no idea what he was talking about); it was quiet for like 6 months, and now its OK MASF PRESS THE RED BUTTON! Dude, if I had put my phone down during this vacation I'd still have no clue what a drive chain is. All I'm saying is there should be more public awareness campaigning before activating soft forks. I get from some peoples perspective this has been brewing for a long time, but for many of us it hasn't.

Also, hopefully the activation happens sooner than five years, within a year would be great. All the groundwork code and proof of concept is done. My comment on five years is to say five years from activation, it will have been a giant nothing burger to regular bitcoiners. People against it now for dumb reasons (some are valid concerns) will be embarassed by their tweets.

Replying to

I have no love for influencers. If its 5 years in the future that's great, I'm only concerned because I feel like I heard drive chains on a podcast like once and now out of nowhere its like this has to be done now. I hear these arguements about new bips and its "we've been working on this for x years and its great so were just going to go nuclear", like CTV, bro I've never even heard of this before! Paul explained drive chains once on wbd, and he did a terrible job (not an attack on him, I just had no idea what he was talking about); it was quiet for like 6 months, and now its OK MASF PRESS THE RED BUTTON! Dude, if I had put my phone down during this vacation I'd still have no clue what a drive chain is. All I'm saying is there should be more public awareness campaigning before activating soft forks. I get from some peoples perspective this has been brewing for a long time, but for many of us it hasn't.