BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG

What’s the mechanism for miners to evict a vanity drivechain?

Bitcoin is not broken. It works fundamentally as designed. It does what it was designed to do, which it what I need it to do.

Lightning gets an honorable mention for sure, but it falls to all the same criticisms levied against Drivechains. Except lightning has a few practical limitations that will prevent it from ever becoming 'money'. First of which: Bitcoin literally cannot process enough transactions to onboard the human race into the lightning network.

Lightning is awesome for what it is, but the only way it can reach global scale is with trusted centralized 'platforms' no different than fiat banks. You see it already with WalletOfSatoshi. Those of us looking to build freedom money cannot settle for a new system of trusted banks. We're trying to cut banks out of the picture and build money for the people.

Lightning is solving scalability and it is fungible more and more everyday with adoption. You can swap it for any other asset with ease already. These problems are already solvable by changing nothing to the network. If #drivechain is really such a good idea. The motivation would be there to fork #bitcoin and run it.

And the base layer of bitcoin gives that zero trust p2p when needed. Everything is a give and take. There is no need to force a 100% zero trust for an instantaneous transaction for a cup of coffee at a cafe. The risks out way the rewards for anyone that use this network as a bank. Someone that plays with the network for novelty or fun may like your perspective. Anyone with skin in the game (storing wealth and using the network) can see #drivechain has more downside then up

What about Rootstock and its merge mining and peg-in peg-out system isn’t desirable enough for your to wants to change the existing bitcoin network?

At the house today it reached 111.4F/44.1C, which was the hottest day of the year (hopefully the rest of the year is cooler). Actually it’s the hottest temp I’ve personally ever recorded here in #Texas. I’ve stopped arguing with #climate deniers over who’s to blame, and now just point out that reducing carbon emissions will help not make it worse. At least some are now listening. Wish they’d listened a couple of decades or even a decade ago.

Maybe I’m missing something but I’m not sure how this would prevent someone from creating vanity #drivechains. Yes, there are thresholds below which a #drivechain slot can be reclaimed but wouldn’t be possible for an attacker to generate vanity transactions (=usage) to maintain the ownership of the drivechain slot?

#Bip300

Bitcoin has a sidechain. Why are you not using it? you think it would be the same reason people wont use this?

Also, what utility does tokenomics give bitcoin? Do we need a dogalon mars coin?

If you analyze your motivation to push #drivechain , does it not feel pointless?

Re: Atomic Swaps

I am thinking of the atomic swap providers much the way I think of Fedi lightning providers. The swap providers do not have to be associated in any way with the "side chain controlers" but they do have to trust them. Only difference is the swap providers need to trust the side chain for the duration of up to two withdrawal windows (1year) where as with fedi lightning providers only need to trust until they request an on chain withdrawal. This is a much more intense capital requirement.

Re: depeg:

Under normal situation sBTC=BTC.

However, if withdrawals freeze due to disagreement on withdrawal bundle progression, I see potential for long (months to years) depegs. I don't fully understand how to resolve side chain controversy. 50% of miners abstaining from any side chain controversy freezes the funds. What next?

1. I like:

1.1 BTC denominated side chains.

1.1.1 This eliminates any technical justification for alts.

1.1.2 There is such cool privacy tech we can make.

2. I don't like:

2.1 Long withdrawal windows

2.1.1 Feels inelegant

2.1.2 Potential to depeg

3. Open questions:

3.1 Can the fees ever be high enough to make miner theft uneconomic?

3.2 Is this a centralising force?

3.3 Do I trust miners more than a multisig?

There's no real demand for it and this introduces many bad incentives for miners. Be aware of how many unintended consequence could come from this. #Bitcoin #BIP300

I'm just not gonna run it.

#Bitcoin  miners in Texas turning off their rigs could very well be the last line of defense, saving the state from rolling blackouts 😮

My love language is #bitcoin

“We should change Bitcoin now in a contentious way to fix the security budget” is basically the same tinkering mentality that central bankers have.

It begins with an overconfident assumption that they know fees won’t be sufficient in the future and that a certain “fix” is going to generate more fees. But some “fixes” could even backfire and create less fees, or introduce bugs, or damage the incentive structure.

The Bitcoin fee market a couple decades out will primarily be a function of adoption or lack thereof. In a world of eight billion people, only a couple hundred million can do an on chain transaction per year, or a bit more with maximal batching. The number of people who could do a monthly transaction is 1/12th of that number. In order to be concerned that bitcoin fees will be too low to prevent censorship in the future, we have to start with the assumption that not many people use bitcoin decades out.

Fedwire has about 100x the gross volume that Bitcoin currently does, with a similar number of transactions. What will Bitcoin’s fee market be if volumes go up 5x or 10x, let alone 50x or 100x? Who wants to raise their hand with a confident model of what bitcoin volumes will be in 2040?

What will someone pay to send a ten million dollar equivalent on chain settlement internationally? $100 in fees per million dollar settlement transaction would be .01%. $300 to get it in a quicker block would be 0.03%. That type of environment can generate tens of billions of dollars of fees annually. The fees that people pay to ship millions of dollars of gold long distances, or to perform a real estate transaction worth millions of dollars, are extremely high. Even if bitcoin is a fraction of that, it would be high by today’s standards. And in a world of billions of people, if nobody wants to pay $100 to send a million dollar settlement bearer asset transaction, then that’s a world where not many people use bitcoin period.

In some months the “security budget” concern trends. In other months, the “fees will be so high that only rich people can transact on chain” concern trends. These are so wildly contradictory and the fact that both are common concerns shows how little we know about the long term future.

I don’t think the fee market can be fixed by gimmicks. Either the network is desirable to use in a couple decades or it’s not. If 3 or 4 decades into bitcoin’s life it can’t generate significant settlement volumes, and gets easily censored due to low fees, then it’s just not a very desirable network at that point for one reason or another.

Some soft forks like covenants can be thoughtfully considered for scaling and fee density, and it’s good for smart developers to always be thinking about low risk improvements to the network that the node network and miners might have a high consensus positive view toward over time. But trying to rush VC-backed softforks, and using security budget FUD to push them, is pretty disingenuous imo.

Anyway, good morning.