Then there's no need for this lol. At all.

Multi sig and put up bitcoin as collateral like any other collateralized asset.

Or hard fork it and do whatever you please.

Orrrrrr. If "creativity" is the key thing here... go prove it with another alt coin.

I fully support a hard fork! And I fully support proposing Drivechain to say Litecoin, or Shiba Inu coin or Bitcoin Cash.

Then there's no need for this lol. At all.

Multi sig and put up bitcoin as collateral like any other collateralized asset.

Or hard fork it and do whatever you please.

Orrrrrr. If "creativity" is the key thing here... go prove it with another alt coin.

I fully support a hard fork! And I fully support proposing Drivechain to say Litecoin, or Shiba Inu coin or Bitcoin Cash.

Peace has as much to do with orderliness than an absence of war... Not much orderly about this whole drivechain "proposal"

The debate about Drivechains is mode political than it is technical.

In practice, every sane bitcoiner wants real sidechains to provide privacy, scalability, speed, more advanced scripting languages, and the opportunity for everyone around the world to own a UTXO and self-custody it in cold storage.

A Zcash sidechain would contribute towards fungibility. A big block sidechain can be used to open and close Lightning channels at the lowest price. An Ethereum sidechain can attract some projects that want to port their code to a more secure Proof of Work chain.

Lots of shitcoins would lose their purpose and get drained of use cases. The exchanges would no longer act as scaling layers to the same degree, as the users won’t have to worry about high fees for their withdrawals.

The 21 million BTC limit also remains unchanged forever, as the fees coming from sidechains would cover the security budget. No more discussions about tail emmission or inflation.

But the issue is that miners refeivr godlike powers in these sidechains and can potentially refuse to release the funds to users or else steal. According to the game theory, miners should follow the economic rationale that maintains their reputation and keeps their revenue source flowing.

But it’s hard to have guarantees when you deal with dynamic actors that follow their incentives and might think short-term.

Lots of parties don’t want miners to gain even more power/control. But the issue is not shitcoinery, that’s only the lazy deflection which doesn’t excuse anyone from not reading.

My argument is “what’s in it for me?”

SegWit and Taproot offered me clear benefits. How does Drivechain benefit me?

Made it 37 seconds into this. From the horses mouth so to speak:

"[Drivechain is a result of some Bitcoiners] to want to have more creativity and innovation, and to try things out."

Nope.

No.

Why?

Here's the litmus test:

---> Does any core upgrade improve Bitcoin as the hardest, soundest money ever? (Scarcity, portability, durability, fungibility and recognizability [verifiable, permisionless])

If not, then immediately no.

Immediately no.

Bitcoin is money. Period. Any "upgrades" must be upgrades to its principles as money.

Quick comments and summary on the #drivechain discussion between Paul and Shinobi yesterday

Shinobi's argument: It's easy and riskless to reorg the sidechain, so this will happen, perhaps frequently. This is not disruptive to the L1 chain. Therefore there will be a significant discount between the bids for the sidechain block and the nominal value of the sidechain block. This induces L1 miners to obtain the blocks directly, instead of accepting bids from sidechain miners, which are deeply discounted.

Paul: OK, fine, but the discounted value of the block should be near the opportunity cost, so not a huge difference.

My comment: Actually, the discounts and risk of reorg are quite different depending on whether you are an L1 miner or a sidechain miner, have more hashrate than other miners, are willing to collude with other miners, or have deep pockets in to destroy opponents in a dollar auction or war of attrition. Larger corporate miners or coordinated pools have a distinct advantage and can be more aggressive and less defensive in reorging the sidechain.

Shinobi: Now L1 miners who mine the sidechains get a premium over those who are accepting bids. This gives these miners a distinct advantage. In particular small-time miners are unable to run a sidechain node will be left out economically speaking, which tends mining towards centralization.

I didn't quite follow Paul's response, it seemed to me like he was saying, "well that's just how it works" and not recognizing that this would be pushing smaller miners underwater, and that this is a bad thing.

I know feels like this whole issue came out of nowhere. Nobody was talking about BIP 300 a few weeks ago. Seems manufactured…

SegWit and Taproot had clear benefits to rank and file node operators. Both, for example, enable smaller transaction sizes to make better use of block space.

Drivechain does not offer clear benefits to rank and file node operators. Rather, it appeals to special interests. And to deliver to these interests, it grants new powers to miners.

If Drivechain proponents want node operators to adopt their new rules, the onus is on them to make a persuasive argument. What’s in it for me?

Vanilla bitcoin lol. Are you looking to have your bitcoin mow your lawn for you. BTC is hard money.

Here is a break down of what Drivetrain is trying to solve

Drivechain offers several “benefits” 🤡including:

Scalability: Drivechains can help alleviate congestion on the main Bitcoin network by offloading transactions to large-block sidechains i.e. Thunder sidechains.

***Lightning can Solve scalability issues prolly far better then this ever will.****

Flexibility: Developers can experiment with new features and technologies on sidechains without risking harm to Bitcoin mainchain.

****you can already do this. Experiment to your hearts desire on Crypto Blockchains. Bitcoin will experience ZERO harm that way.****

Interoperability: value can be moved seamlessly between Bitcoin sidechains and Bitcoin mainchain, allowing users to use multiple blockchain applications without holding multiple cryptocurrencies.

Yet another made up issue that doesnt need solving.

***You can exchange assets all you want already without holding many of them…..any 20,000+ of them provide nothing useful that bitcoin cant do already other then maybe privacy levels of monero***

Security: Sidechains are economically secured by transaction fees. As a sidechain grows, it becomes stronger.

***Bitcoin is the most secure computer network on the planet. We do not need any form of connection to insecure scam networks.***

With mercury layer you don't have to worry about incoming liquidity, the privacy is very high, it's like exchanging cash and the scalability is total, again like exchanging cash, in fact you exchange the private keys outside the chain.

On the other hand the cons is that I understand that it will be a federated system.

Fly away little seagull , behold the might of the 80IQ pleb.

Rejection and avoidance of developing over already running layer 2s like lightning, liquid (and RSK), To try and force changes for another seems more like spite