>a design flaw is an advantage !
If you are pro market you should be pro bip300. It's literally creating a market. If you don't think it is, you don't know it well enough.
Drivechain.info
According Satoshi, the security model of long term bitcoin, is not small lottery style mining, its fee's, is it not ?
Liquid has several design disadvantages. Even though its been open sourced recently, it still requires trusted parties within the ecosystem.
Drivechain does not. No one can run off with your money in a sidechain.
Liquid was designed for legal entities who could sue each other if one started stealing.
Interesting point. I think that might be true for some people.
Since it is user and sidechain initiated, it would be more accurate to see it like unfederated, liberated Liquid.
If we are comfortable with liquidwe should be comfortable with DC
Matt's reply here is a commonnin defence of drivechains that is good, but not my favorite. It's one of the weaker defences, and only weak because of the counter position of most maxi veliefe that bitcoin number go up.
Claiming miners will need fees when your debate partner believes future miners will always make sufficient money of blocks because fiat will simultaneously lose value alongside it is not how bitcoinnwqs intended or designed. So if they do not know this or are ignoring it, i prefer leading with the stronger more universal reasons.
>Maybe mining wasn't supposed to be mostly centralized corporations. In concept.
>Satoshi intended plebs to mine off CPUs.
I cannot know the mind of satoshi or his intention. Perhaps he saw the present reality or not. He's not god or a parent i am supposed to carry out their will for. He was just a clever engineer who in cooperation with many others and their inventions, created bitcoin. Also, he intended fees to secure the network long term, the security model relies on this, from his perspective vased on the whitepaper of 2009.
We must deal with present reality. For instance, by your reasoning we should switch to Monero. It uses RandomX which eliminates ASICS completely and allows any regular laptop to secure the network. Switching to randomX (but not monero) happens to be one of the emergency measures that could be taken to circumvent a state level 51% attack by the way.
>In theory, is changing the Core code good for the money itself?
In theory and in practice yes. More intrusive and disruptive bips have been passed before. Bip300 will have fewer affects than taproot, simply because the affects are designed to be isolated to those who want to participate.
>Mining will be fine, as difficulty will adjust. Same security.
Maybe it will but the difficulty adjustment does not pay more money to miners or incentiviseS a dencentralized hash. I find miner arguments againsy DC to be a distraction. DC plays by the rules and dynamics that exist. Miner decentralization is an important issue and there are other projects trying to deal with that. But this bip is about sonething else.
I hope this comment was relevant, i did not read the ones further up the line.
You look like a freshly dehydrated orange, yet i bet some woman fucks you, so yes.
Unfunny/funny is, like ugliness, in the eye of the beholder and does not determine truth.
What is the difference between #proofofwork and the Marxist Labor theory of value ?
>I will aggresively not do something i don't want to.
Okay that's fine, will you let me do something i want to?
> no. Fuck you
Wut
#blockstream
Might be wrong, but the main difference so far between the newly open sourced #Liquid and #Drivechain is, escrow. Liquid TWpegs are meant for large institutions transfering bitcoin to eachother in the near future. They are not meant for long term security against rugpulls.
4) No need to rush. not tested
they have had a test net and test sidechains for years. No one wants to rush it. We want to follow normal good faith procedure as any other bip.
But if the arguments continue to be dumb memes and not technical reasons, miners reserve the right to fork.
Also, how do you know there is no need to rush ? What if something that threatens bitcoin but can be mitigated by DC , is one month away ? Prepparing for emergencies, which DC enables, is rarely a bad thing
3) regulation.
Then you are against liquid and blockstream ?Do they pose a regulatory risk to bitcoin because it relies on bip 16 ?
2) Liquidity being taken from bitcoin L1
This is already happening. Tether is a downward pressure on bitcoin. Eth and other altcoins are siphoning hash that could be in bitcoin. DC allows those technologies to be on L2 .
DC is OPT-IN. A successful DC L2 means there is a consumer need for it, meeting that need is a good thing. To argue you don't want DC because it might be too good is like saying other people should not be allowed to try on new pants.
Also, L1 will always be there because anything on L2 supports L1 through fees which support the network L1
1) Bitcoin brand.
Brands are only rational to be concerned about for centralized businesses and people who have control over their image. What about the christian brand or muslim brand ? What about the gold brand or silver ?
Many people already scoff at the word bitcoin others think it's interesting. If we are basing decisions on branding and perception, let's just increase coin supply and make everyone a bitcoin millionaire.
A faction within bitcoin are into bitcoin for the brand, for the hype and not the tech or financials. These people are not worth consulting on this issue.
How do miners vote to peg out ? I asked for a specifics.
Their vote is a POLL vote to confirm the peg out which is initiated by the side chain.
NOT ON whether or not the peg out is made, or goes through.
If a peg out fails, nothing is lost or stolen. The transactions are bundled and tried again.
What do you mean by chain ? You mean a specific chain history on the sidechain ?
Miners don't select those.
How do the miners steal ? Give a precise technical explanation .
