Running Ethside: An Ethereum Fork that runs on Bitcoin
2301 sats \ 21 comments \ @jeff 22 Jan 2023 bitcoin
Paul Sztorc's Ethside is working against a regtest fork.
Ethside is a fork of Ethereum, that is compatible with the Bitcoin drivechains protocol.
I'm still learning, but UX wise, drivechains to me feel sortof-like an app-store on top of Bitcoin. Potentially, and optionally, useful stuff added that you don't have to use nor would be impacted by unless you want to. It makes the money more useful.
The snippet of code from the tweets...
> eth.getBalance(eth.accounts[0])
0
> eth.deposit(eth.accounts[0], web3.toSatoshi(10), web3.toSatoshi(0.0001)) // account, amount, fee
true
> eth.getBalance(eth.accounts[0])
10000000000000000000
...makes three calls. The first and last just confirm the 2nd one worked. The 2nd one, somehow (still learning here) proposes a transaction on a would-be Bitcoin mainnet, that pegs in some sats to the drivechain. After you do that, you have sats as the base currency on an Ethereum fork. We're not talking wrapped-shitcoinery here, we're talking sats as the native unit of account.
You can then do a...
> eth.withdraw(eth.accounts[0], web3.toSatoshi(11), web3.toSatoshi(0.0001))
...to peg-out (or peg-off?), the Ethside drivechain.
I think think the wildest part here, is a UTXO model conversion to an account model. Kindof mind blowing innovation tbh.
There are 5 other drive chain examples Paul has built.
h/t to @kr ; the Kevin Rooke show recently had Paul on to discuss.
write
preview
related posts
1059 sats \ 3 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 23 Jan 2023
Strong pass!
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jeff OP 23 Jan 2023
That's the beauty of this.
It's optional, and you can pass!
But...
BitcoinIsTheFuture
In the future, are transaction fees high enough to keep the security high enough to offset the drop in blockchain subsidy? If prices drop temporarily due a global virus or wide-spread large-scale fraud or government ban, would miners shut off their rigs until the price recovers? Would the price climb, while mining was down?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 23 Jan 2023
It's optional, and you can pass!
No, it's not really optional. It exploits one of the vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin protocol: the fact you can soft-fork in additional chains with just a majority of mining hashing power. It would be good if we found a way to fix this.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff OP 23 Jan 2023
I meant, it's optional to use the drivechain.
But yah, it's all for one and one for all, adding them.
reply
249 sats \ 0 replies \ @lnproxy 22 Jan 2023
Based.
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @elzonte 22 Jan 2023
The sooner the "mother asshole" dies the better for humanity
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @jeff OP 22 Jan 2023
I'm aware of Saifedean Ammous's position here.
It's unclear to me if you are saying running a fork of open source software on Bitcoin is a way to compete to kill off that other "mother asshole", or a way to extend the "mother asshole"'s life.
Could go either way. Can you clarify?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @NorthKoreanHostage 22 Jan 2023
Sounds like dude wrongly read concluded that this was an eth killer.
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @elzonte 22 Jan 2023
No. I know it isn't an ETH killer. It's an ETH life giver; therefore, it's a scam prolonger.
A drive chain for ETH is a terrible idea and needs to die.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @FatBear 23 Jan 2023
But why?
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff OP 23 Jan 2023
NGU?
Improve Bitcoin Security?
Users get more choices?
All the above?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @FatBear 23 Jan 2023
Sorry, you misunderstood. What's the point of ethereum?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 22 Jan 2023
no thanks.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @NorthKoreanHostage 22 Jan 2023
I don't understand what purpose drivechains have.
I suspect that's where the next wave of shitcoins will come from.
And just because Bitcoin has a supply cap doesn't mean that drivechains will.
Drivechains simply exist to trick BTC holders into giving up their BTC for something inferior.
Trust me. The most profitable thing to do with drivechains is to steal BTC. They serve no other apparent purpose. Maybe I'm wrong.
reply
16 sats \ 0 replies \ @lunabrokein2022 22 Jan 2023 freebie
it's better for them to continue shitcoinery pumping BTC at least, rather than not.
All shitcoins completely miss the point of the Bitcoin revolution - and they will continue to into eternity. Whether it's on Bitcoin or not, should not have any effect to the people who understand Bitcoin's purpose
reply
356 sats \ 5 replies \ @jeff OP 22 Jan 2023
Trust me.
Thanks, but I'd rather verify.
Maybe I'm wrong.
How will you know?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @l0k18 22 Jan 2023
The presumption should fall on doubt, verification leads to proof.
In any case, if it somehow does manage to take off, it means more sats for miners, and potentially transaction congestion for bitcoiners. Not really much we can do about it but on the other hand the on chain tx fee cost might destroy the business model.
Congestion will cause a rise in fees that may swallow up enough of the "profits" that the shysters look for easier prey.
I remember the great congestion of 2017-2018. It's bullish all the way for miners. It will give LN node runners a headache for a while until countermeasures are developed.
I say let em make their shitcoin side chains. This can't really hurt bitcoin long term, only further increase the number of people using it. Once they are looking on in envy at their bitcoiner mates who just DCA'd and relaxed who are sitting far out front in terms of yield the penny will drop.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff OP 22 Jan 2023
if it somehow does manage to take off
Drivechains can't take off. They require a fork to fully implement. (See BIP 300 and 301). Right now, you need permission to innovate on top of Bitcoin. This is either a feature or a bug. Only the future knows for sure which it is with certainty.
I personally think it's a feature.
But, if we could unlock a mechanism to innovate in a permission less way, with opt-in only forms of risk, than the user just has more choices.
I personally would likely never use a drive chain that didn't keep sats as their unit of account.
congestion
Bitcoin needs full blocks long-term. Any business model that assumes cheap base layer fees AND Bitcoin's survival is playing a game of chicken with time.
Base chain fees need to become material and predictable.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 22 Jan 2023
Bitcoin needs full blocks long-term. Any business model that assumes cheap base layer fees AND Bitcoin's survival is playing a game of chicken with time.
Base chain fees need to become material and predictable.
Yes, chain space is a limited resource and at the same time optemising it to near capacity and reducing the fluctuation of demand kinda implies that eventually a very large amount of traffic on it is fully automated and can adapt relatively quickly to the change in demand, sheltered at least one layer from the base layer.
I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing a likely pivot from BTC on chain towards sats on LN.
I don't see any problem with people running casinos based on Bitcoin per se, just that it would be better if it ran on top of LN instead. I see no sane reason why there needs to be anything other than LN making up the bulk of transactions on chain. This would achieve the optimisation of base layer utilisation because the main competition would be between LN node runners, who generally are trying to avoid on chain fees. This equilibrium will be very strong once it starts.
Protocols based on LN are far far more interesting than more stupid sidechains. People just don't have enough imagination to even conceive of it.
Why would you chain your protocol to max 4mb of BTC transactions as its limitation when you can build off LN and you have no scaling dilemma to deal with anymore.
LN is the future. Bitcoin is the foundation, LN is the walls, and the protocols that build on LN are the roof.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @NorthKoreanHostage 22 Jan 2023
Way to cleverly miss the point.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jeff OP 22 Jan 2023
I don't think I missed any of your points. But you also didn't answer my question.
Did you know that a drivechain does not require a new unit of account? They could function using Bitcoin as a unit of account. One of the properties of money.
It's just a coincidence that some drivechains could choose to use their own shitcoin.
I predict the only drivechains that would last more than 2 cycles, would be the ones to use Bitcoin as their unit of account.
Edit: Here, friend, have a smile from a fun youtube video about coincidences.
reply