MyNode is excellent. It gives you a lot of optionality, is easy to install and run, and gives you multiple options for managing a lightning node, multisig, etc.

Pho 🍜 with extra sriracha and limes to scorch my cold out. ✌🏼

#asknostr… he’s never tried them. To taste or not to taste? He wanted me to ask ya’ll lol I’m not a fan but we’ll see

The moon is orange not blue

The gerontocracy will not hold us down forever. This isn’t priced in.

Caring and having the capability of understanding are two very different things. I'd venture to guess the majority of people against it can't articulate specifically what risks it imposes, and couldn't compare and contrast it's risks against other changes, like taproot for example.

I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak in general

I don't understand drivechains enough either.

But I have a simple question to all drivechain proponents.

Tell me one use-case that we need on #bitcoin and that we can't resolve by standard L2s which would justify the protocol change.

The discussion is cirlcing around miners incentives, potentially unknown risks to the protocol, etc. But I want to know what it brings that we actually need and want on bitcoin. Because I can't think of anything...

And if that is the case, then it really is just dangerous, meaningless messing with miners' incentives and potentially unwanted consequences to the protocol.

I heard from multiple sources that it could bring sidechain with great privacy. In my opinion this can be resolved on L2 or with combination of CoinJoin and L2. I don't see need for ultra private sidechain.

But I am waiting to get educated.

Agreed.

For me, one of the least talked about effects is the new incentive for centralization.

With drivechain, miners vote to enable/disable side chains. And, importantly, disabling a side chain unlocks the funds. This creates a new and potentially large incentive for miners to centralize. A 51% attacker can sweep side chains.

Plus, philosophically, it violates the your-keys-your-coins basic contract of Bitcoin. Today, a 51% attacker can rewrite history, but they can’t take coins that belong to you without rewriting all the way back to when you got them. Under drivechain, a 51% attacker can take sidechain locked coin without rewriting history (just by building and mining specific blocks).

Agreed.

For me, one of the least talked about effects is the new incentive for centralization.

With drivechain, miners vote to enable/disable side chains. And, importantly, disabling a side chain unlocks the funds. This creates a new and potentially large incentive for miners to centralize. A 51% attacker can sweep side chains.

Plus, philosophically, it violates the your-keys-your-coins basic contract of Bitcoin. Today, a 51% attacker can rewrite history, but they can’t take coins that belong to you without rewriting all the way back to when you got them. Under drivechain, a 51% attacker can take sidechain locked coin without rewriting history (just by building and mining specific blocks).

2 things Satoshi intended that changed:

1) Mining was meant to be pleb based. He intended plebs to run mining off graphics cards. Not sure he intended or foresaw mining to NOT be viable for plebs like it's been for what, 8-10 years?

2) The blocksize limit was temporary. It was meant to change.

I'm not holding his ideas to absolutes, but it's an interesting point to note... these two ideas and how they changed.

Not saying he was right or wrong, but I think we should pause more to consider the initial ideas for what Bitcoin was supposed to be.

Hey! Wondering if you'd be cool to give me feedback on my understanding of DC at a simple level.

Its the ability to move coins/sats off the main chain in a peg-out type of situation, to underpin/start a completely different blockchain. Thereby inviting new mining to be incorporated WITH the Core L1 mining.

This enables anyone's project to then be directly tied into the Bitcoin Network...

Instead of how a sidechain might operate now, with trust involved and peg in peg out style escrow and custody and no integrated of mining beyond a couple in and out L1 transactions.

And this skews mining to further centralize it, where Satoshi initially intended mining to be mostly pleb based.

I'll send you some sats for the help, thanks!

What else is key to know? Just seems like miners and alt coins wanting to be attached to Core instead of requiring trust... which taints Bitcoin to all and any bad project, not to mention opens up unknown and unforeseeable attack vectors like say how no one saw Ordinals coming when Taproot was proposed. But it might be far more nefarious.

Thanks.

If you want to make BIP300/drivechains/decentralized sidechains happen in a way that isn’t embarrassingly insecure, work on StratumV2, work on Braidpool, bring P2Pool back.

Without substantial increases in mining decentralization these things make zero sense.