So beyond ELI5, what's your thoughts on people saying it could impact consensus / block validation?

I haven't seen anything written up on it, but I keep seeing people mention it in rebuttals.

I do not recall miners coordinating through softforks to respond to attacks. Do you have an example?

There are no side chains as of now so it looks like we are talking past each other. FWIW, my nodes will not be supporting BIP 300 for the foreseeable future

Taproot brought in schnorr signatures which is used by nostr. So arguably without taproot, we might not have had nostr.

Drivechain is a proposal to create a side chain where the miners hold the coins and control the deposits. Its imho a very insecure proposal on top of bitcoin's secure base. Generally not liked, apart from a vocal minority.

The question arises on how to activate forks for new software, and also what happens if there's a relatively hostile miner fork, that the ecosystem doesnt want, or even a secret fork by the miners. The community is working through these possibilities, and I think has become more resilient.

On the topic of spam, it was always possible in bitcoin. We have not developed good defenses to it, aside from the fact that the previous block size increases were relatively modest, allowing a decentralized network of nodes.

One good thing of the discussions is that everyone seems to agree that decentralizing mining with stratumv2 is a good idea. This could lead to higher security for bitcoin, and therefore, higher price. As well as a longer life for the project, which everyone wants.

Taproot brought in schnorr signatures which is used by nostr. So arguably without taproot, we might not have had nostr.

Drivechain is a proposal to create a side chain where the miners hold the coins and control the deposits. Its imho a very insecure proposal on top of bitcoin's secure base. Generally not liked, apart from a vocal minority.

The question arises on how to activate forks for new software, and also what happens if there's a relatively hostile miner fork, that the ecosystem doesnt want, or even a secret fork by the miners. The community is working through these possibilities, and I think has become more resilient.

On the topic of spam, it was always possible in bitcoin. We have not developed good defenses to it, aside from the fact that the previous block size increases were relatively modest, allowing a decentralized network of nodes.

One good thing of the discussions is that everyone seems to agree that decentralizing mining with stratumv2 is a good idea. This could lead to higher security for bitcoin, and therefore, higher price. As well as a longer life for the project, which everyone wants.

Main question is: can Drivechain meme?

Main question is: can Drivechain meme?

All changes in the bitcoin consensus rules require the nodes to adopt the new rules to validate the blocks produced by miners. Without the nodes accepting BIP300 blocks as valid and forwarding the blocks, those blocks don’t get added to the chain

I AM TRYING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU BUT YOU KEEP SPITTING FACTS lol.

Thanks for your inputs. I need to research this a bit more but to me, being paid in #BTC isn’t the same as securing the main chain with hashpower. I can see how it’s better than being paid with another #crypto but there can still be a hashpower cannibalization effect as far as I understand.

LOL

Right, but a given amount of hashpower needs to be directed to either a sidechain or the main chain. It can’t be directed to both at the same time. It’s a zero sum game. #Bitcoin #Bip300 #drivechain

The people who could have benefited the most from #bitcoin have been laughing at me for years.

Now blackrock is going to push the price up so high most people will never be able to own a full coin or main chain UTXOs.

This doesn’t feel like winning….

After watching this interview, my understanding of how #drivechain work is still incomplete but here are a few concerns I have:

1) Miners would gain the ability to censor transactions by blocking the peg-out with only 25% of the votes. I could see a scenario where large pools (above 25%) would be mandated by a government to censor transactions that don’t comply with #KYC (or other blacklist). Hence, people could not withdraw their fund from a sidechain when trying to send to a non-KYCed #Bitcoin address.

2) Sidechains could cannibalise #BTC security by fragmenting hashpower between the main chain and the sidechains.

Are these concerns legit or FUD?

An argument that Paul used many times to alleviate these concerns is that if you don’t use drivechains, you’re not impacted but I disagree with this statement. Any issues with fund being stuck on sidechains will undermine the Bitcoin brand. Most folks are not going to understand the nuances and it could result in the public perception that Bitcoin is not safe and secure.

I’m not opposed to Bitcoin evolving but I’d rather like to see proposals related to on-chain scaling for Bitcoin to be more usable as a medium of exchange. If there is a risk to undermine the brand or security of Bitcoin, I’d prefer for the #crypto experimentations to take place on alternative #blockchain rather than on Bitcoin. nostr:note1xj0366z5repa5x6huj3ycwcwh6wv989ekc2vpvz6pgh9kyg3f4pqf7qnmh

After watching this interview, my understanding of how #drivechain work is still incomplete but here are a few concerns I have:

1) Miners would gain the ability to censor transactions by blocking the peg-out with only 25% of the votes. I could see a scenario where large pools (above 25%) would be mandated by a government to censor transactions that don’t comply with #KYC (or other blacklist). Hence, people could not withdraw their fund from a sidechain when trying to send to a non-KYCed #Bitcoin address.

2) Sidechains could cannibalise #BTC security by fragmenting hashpower between the main chain and the sidechains.

Are these concerns legit or FUD?

An argument that Paul used many times to alleviate these concerns is that if you don’t use drivechains, you’re not impacted but I disagree with this statement. Any issues with fund being stuck on sidechains will undermine the Bitcoin brand. Most folks are not going to understand the nuances and it could result in the public perception that Bitcoin is not safe and secure.

I’m not opposed to Bitcoin evolving but I’d rather like to see proposals related to on-chain scaling for Bitcoin to be more usable as a medium of exchange. If there is a risk to undermine the brand or security of Bitcoin, I’d prefer for the #crypto experimentations to take place on alternative #blockchain rather than on Bitcoin. nostr:note1xj0366z5repa5x6huj3ycwcwh6wv989ekc2vpvz6pgh9kyg3f4pqf7qnmh

After watching this interview, my understanding of how #drivechain work is still incomplete but here are a few concerns I have:

1) Miners would gain the ability to censor transactions by blocking the peg-out with only 25% of the votes. I could see a scenario where large pools (above 25%) would be mandated by a government to censor transactions that don’t comply with #KYC (or other blacklist). Hence, people could not withdraw their fund from a sidechain when trying to send to a non-KYCed #Bitcoin address.

2) Sidechains could cannibalise #BTC security by fragmenting hashpower between the main chain and the sidechains.

Are these concerns legit or FUD?

An argument that Paul used many times to alleviate these concerns is that if you don’t use drivechains, you’re not impacted but I disagree with this statement. Any issues with fund being stuck on sidechains will undermine the Bitcoin brand. Most folks are not going to understand the nuances and it could result in the public perception that Bitcoin is not safe and secure.

I’m not opposed to Bitcoin evolving but I’d rather like to see proposals related to on-chain scaling for Bitcoin to be more usable as a medium of exchange. If there is a risk to undermine the brand or security of Bitcoin, I’d prefer for the #crypto experimentations to take place on alternative #blockchain rather than on Bitcoin. nostr:note1xj0366z5repa5x6huj3ycwcwh6wv989ekc2vpvz6pgh9kyg3f4pqf7qnmh