For those that are in the know of specifically how drivechain works and is supposed to work, can you answer these questions...

#asknostr #drivechain #sidechain #bip300 #bip301 #bitcoin

1. Can sidechains mine blocks faster than the main chain?

2. Can participants in a sidechain unilaterally withdraw, or does the bundle need to be done by sidechain miners, or the sidechain owner?

3. Can multiple withdraw bundles be done from a sidechain concurrently, or does it need to wait the 3-6 months worth of blocks for success or failure?

4. Can multiple sidechains be having withdraw bundles at the same time?

5. How much blockspace is required for blind merge mining all 256 slots asaiming maximal sidechains?

6. Can a sidechain have its own set of up to 256 side chains branching off of it?

7. How feasible is atomic swaps between these side chains? If a user receives funds on sidechain in slot #107 but wants to then send some to sidechain #221 is there direct support or would they need to go through 3 months of withdraw from 107 to then do another tx to peg into 221

8. If there is no POW on the side chain itself, how are blockspace limits and fees to be handled, and how is tx spam in a sidechain addressed?

9. How can drivechains be decentralized and permissionless to avoid miner control on creation?

Is it possible to connect to a private relay over Tor? I've got a relay setup, but none of the clients I've tried seem to connect through ws: address.

#asknostr

That’s terrible, what will you do if you can’t find accommodations?

For reference, here are my main thoughts on the current Bitcoin softfork ideas/dramas to those who care.

For context with regards to wherever it might matter, I have a 12-year background as an engineer initially and eventually an engineering manager, including overseeing electrical/mechanical/software for an aviation simulation facility, but although I have written code here and there in my early days, I am certainly *NOT* a software engineer. My career work is on electrical engineering and multi-discipline engineering management, and my master's degree is in engineering management, with an emphasis on systems engineering and engineering economics. Any viewpoint I have is from an engineering/systems management perspective or an economics perspective, not a programmer perspective.

I follow multiple software Bitcoin experts on various topics, many of which disagree with each other, similarly to how I followed my various lead engineers when I was working in engineering management.

The U.S. Constitution is well-written but of course not perfect. It's a good document, especially after the amendments it has had. The most recent amendment was over 30 years ago, and it is minor enough that most people don't know what it is. The second most recent one was over 50 years ago, and that one is also pretty minor, imo, and most people don't know that one either. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a then a handful of key amendments after that to fix key issues with race and gender voting and so forth, have been the foundational aspects of this whole Constitutional project.

In order to change the U.S. Constitution, you need both a supermajority in Congress and a supermajority among States. Good luck getting that. And that near-immutability is exactly why the Constitution is valuable. Even if it was better written and included all sorts of things I liked, if it were easier to change, I would consider it to be a *worse* foundation than it is now. The near-immutability is the critical part. A nearly-immutable good document, is a great document, if it serves as the foundation of something important.

When it comes to Bitcoin, the aspect that I view as being the most valuable is its near-immutability. We have a global open-source ledger foundation that gives us savings and payment/settlement technology. It makes hard trade-offs in order to remain reasonably decentralized. And yet, Bitcoin can settle more transactions per year than Fedwire does, which is the U.S. base settlement layer, which handles (not a typo) 1 quadrillion dollars worth of gross settlement volumes per year. Bitcoin does that function but is global, open-source, and has its own scarce units. Various layers can expand that scalability, (Lightning, sidechains, fedimints, custodial environments, etc). Certain softforks to the base layer may also add some new scalability options (covenants, drivechains, zero-knowledge proofs, etc). But those softforks present risks to the whole project, unless they have a supermajority of support and are considered to be of low technical+incentive risk.

When I was an engineering manager for my aviation facility, if I were to approve a major new change and help fund it, it would be because the supermajority of my senior technical leads supported it, and because they could convince me of it. Objective truth tends to be easy to share between rational people that listen to each other. In contrast, subjective things that are more contested of course tend to be harder. If I liked a new change but it didn't have a supermajority, I respected these divergent opinions and wanted to know why they saw it differently. Unless it was in an area where I was *specifically* the facility expert in (in my case, the electrical/control aspects within our organization's aviation simulators), I would never go with a minority opinion among my technical leads and override the majority of my technical leads.

One of the most common problems I encountered in my career was over-engineering. Not a single person knows every detail about how an aviation simulator works (which was my field of work). There are software experts, graphical design experts, mechanical experts, electronics experts, pilot experts, and then business experts that have to figure out what is valuable to clients and how to get the required stuff and how to make the whole thing economical and thus well-incentivized. Systems engineering, practically by definition, is the science of managing a project that is more complex than any one human mind can possibly understand. Any major project engineer/manager has to deal with this dilemma.

As it pertains to over-engineering, many people often have pet projects that they care about, or want to make really cool complex things, that are not economical or not robust. Endless changes can create endless complexity, which are hard to maintain, are less reliable, and so forth. The most beautiful engineering designs are often the most simple at the foundation. Complexity can exist in layers or silos built on or around that foundation, which reduces contagion risk to the simple-but-robust foundation.

In short, if you you can't convince a supermajority, then maybe your idea isn't right or needs more work. Maybe the problem is on your end. Especially if the supermajority that you need to convince are intelligent relevant people (in Bitcoin's case: software developers, node-runners, miners, capital allocators, etc).

And of course, foundations like the U.S. Constitution or the Bitcoin base layer are far more important than the engineering frameworks of some random aviation simulation facility, so the standards are higher.

So, how do I assess proposed softforks as someone who hasn't written code in a decade but tries to follow the designs and economics of various proposals where possible? I look towards technical leads, and look for a supermajority of serious stakeholders, and need the proposal to clearly make sense to me technically and economically.

I view Bitcoin as being valuable due to its near-immutability. That is the source of its monetary premium. And so as follows, from a project management perspective regarding what is among the most serious of all possible projects:

-The first rule of Bitcoin is you do not break Bitcoin.

-The second rule of Bitcoin is you do not break Bitcoin.

-The third rule of Bitcoin is you do not break Bitcoin.

-The fourth rule of Bitcoin is that, around the margins, you try to find conservative ways to improve Bitcoin that are clear enough to get a supermajority.

Therefore, my view on softforks is that I defer to the supermajority of experts I trust, while also needing it to make sense to me personally. I'm agnostic towards many softforks, since I don't have the detailed software expertise to be relevant between similar proposals. As proposed softworks gain momentum, I check to see if they make sense to me, and then look for a supermajority.

Bitcoin is valuable due to its near-immutability. If it can be changed by minority factions, then the relevance of the project over the long arc of time is limited. To the extent that it's going to be any sort of important base layer, that near-immutability, much like the U.S. Constitution, is critical. To that extent, any proposed change to Bitcoin is not just a software thing; it's an economics thing as well.

Therefore, if proponents of a given softfork try to find a way to push itself on the network without a supermajority of technical experts and economic actors, then whether or not I like it, I will oppose it. That's a way to turn me from neutral to opposed. Because that near-immutability is what I would fight for. I only support highly agreed-upon changes. Whatever small piece that my node, my voice, and my money can do, I err towards the near-immutability.

It just occured to me that we can make #bitcoin wallets by rolling a ten-sided die 48 times for a 12 word seed and 96 times for a 25 word seed.

Is the entropy good enough though?

#asknostr

Drivechains

Alright people, we are playing a game of chess here. The one thing, the absolute one thing, we can't do is give up the king. To give up the king, in my humble opinion, is to mess up the base layer. This mistake would disrupt the delicate incentive structure that ensures sound money. That sound money pegs the extremely fragile credit markets and out-of-control G7 policymakers that are creating clown world with their CB fiat policies.

We don’t need the sound, pegged, money to move fast, we don’t need the money to do smart swoopty things, we just need it to be pegged, immutable, and digitally sailable to actually stop the madness of clown world.

By introducing a whole lot of technical complexity to the base layer and potentially screwing with the incentives all so we can connect to a bunch of centralized shitcoin projects is like playing offense with the king when you’re down 7 pieces and the other player still has their entire back row at their disposal.

A. Why the rush!?

B. Why not just go use Monero if you need that level of anominity in your transactions. Why do you have to have it in a wrapper via drivechains?

C. Why risk the king without deep understanding and testing of the technical risk and potential change to incentives?

The beauty of Bitcoin is you can build it and softfork it, and we’ll let the community vote with their nodes. BUT, I for one, have no use for drivechains (that doesn’t mean everyone is like me). And as a result, I will not be updating my node and running any attempted “secret” softfork updates by the miners.

Finally found a vault good enough to hold our keys

alright alright alright… had to 2FA on github because i was changing something critical … used the mobile app for 2FA as I often do, and it spat out `66` as the digits to enter. i’m a bit tired and braindead already as i’ve been up early so i wrongly entered `88` and immediatly after entering it i knew that i had a brainfart and that it would fail. it obviously failed and i refreshed to get a new number, and i got `88`. WHAT ARE THE ODDS?! (they are 1% if you’re wondering… 1%)

Feeling cute, might delet later

strike has started working on its first nostr related product

so excited

open networks win

Are you a bot!? That was scary fast.

My only initial feedback is that I’m not convinced this needs smart contracts or a blockchain. Nostr provides the identity and data layer (without a blockchain) and bitcoin provides the currency layer. Is there some other reason you would need a blockchain?

Thanks for this complete answer.

Do light nodes need to open channels to trampoline routing nodes or could they just have a partial graph referencing all the trampoline nodes ?

In the scanrio of any random node being a trampoline node even the less unreliable or with few liquidity, could the light node ask to several trampoline nodes to build the path and the first who settle the invoice "win" ?

For the privacy part, I think blinded pathes are coming in a near future so it could help mitigate that right?