pull down to refresh
The drivechain security model is much better than Lightning's.
Lightning:
- fails if a 51% hashrate coalition interferes with your channel
- the 51% hashrate does not suffer any costs by attacking
In DC, it is more profitable for greedy miners to maintain the deposit/withdrawal. So that they can farm the chain for free merged mining revenues. -- https://drivechain.info/blog/fees/
And that is just a comparison on DCs weakest point. In every other way -- routing, hot wallet, sensitivity to L1 fees -- LN is much much worse.
The LN model is just bad. Altcoins usually copy Bitcoin's ideas... if they are good. Many coins use Bip39 -- many coins use HD wallets -- many coins have block explorers -- many coins use addresses -- many coins use ZK -- many coins use the UTXO model. When ethereum invented the EVM -- many coins copied it. Copying = good.
But no Altcoin copies Bitcoin's LN because they can all tell that it is just garbage.
Lightning is hot-wallet risk generally, that's the trade-off for speed and granularity, which inherently requires interactivity and nothing solves that... fake L2's devs shilling Ark/Spark are learning this the hard way.
51% attacks can break any number of things, the same incentive applies to both DC and LN in a 51%, that a theft of that scale renders what you've stolen worthless.
Altcoins usually copy Bitcoin's ideas
Generally a counter signal.
BIP39 is terrible, not even Core uses it, yet it's responsible for more coin theft than anything.
EVM is straight up moronic
no Altcoin copies Bitcoin's LN
Because no altcoin is worth transacting frequently, granularly, or is valuable enough that transactions need to be re-used.
Your appeal to shitcoiners wisdom speaks volumes.
bip 39 is terrible
i'm calling it now, you are a troll
not even Core uses it, yet it's responsible for more coin theft than anything.
fact, not opinion.
Could you point me in the direction of some reading material related to bip39's problems, I was genuinely unaware of it being controversial. Also might I ask what the best alternative is in your opinion?
Core's aversion to it seems to be mostly about cryptographic strength
Haven't seen any great overall write-ups
Have seen other mentions about lack of versioning, and AI's potential to brute force, which coincides with cryptographic strength.
What I find most interesting is that it is the single greatest cause of stolen coin, through social engineering and inviting lazy storage
The alternative, at least how Core does it, is have you back up the seed and encrypt it.
Whether that's better is debatable, people lost coins that way too when it was more common. Harder to social engineer, but just as if not more easy to fuck up storage.
The other alternative is AEZEED, same social engineering weakness, but more obscure which mitigates that at least for now. If it became more popular that advantage would flip.
AEZEED also has versioning and better cryptographic strength as a direct response to criticism of BIP39, so it's "better" at least incrementally, but still doesn't really address the causes of lost coin thus far.
Key management is a fundamental CS issue for which there seems to be no ideal solution, key management faces the same challenges it has since systems started using it in the 70's/80's
I've given seriously thought to this and everything I think up comes back to moving trade-offs around. Better brainwallet tooling (and split brainwallet tooling for inheritance) may be the lowest hanging fruit and probably warrants some additional effort.
eCash will have Vaults ...so...
I bet, I know shitcoiners love crypto-theater features
Thanks, thats helpfull. Any additional opinions on trezor's SLIP 39?
Might have some use cases, probably better than multisig in mosts contexts
Haven't pondered it much though
for all we know, no one in core uses or is paid in bitcoin
No argument there.
you keep making broad universal statements as though they are fact
they are not facts
the Bip300/301 blind merged mining is secure
have you studied the technology before making these declarations ?
Security equivalent
Just because it's secure enough for you doesn't make it security equivalent. Plenty of shitcoiners think Litecoin, DOGE, Monero etc are secure enough... they're still shitcoins.
MM Sidechains would not only have inferior hashrate, but additional swap surface, centralization... out of necessity.
It's fucking physics.
missing the B
FOR BLIND
IN BMM/BIP300: BLIND MERGED MINING
HENCE REDUCED SURFACE
Sidechains are not security equivalent to Bitcoin, and therefore, shitcoins.
Not even terabyte blocks would solve the scaling limitation, this is a signal you've never studied the actual problem space. It has nothing to to with throughput, but distribution of the base unit. The only solution is a supply increase (non-dillutive), which isn't going to happen.
There are less than 300M companies/institutions on the planet, less than 1BN households... even less with actual money to save.
The theoretical scaling limitations, including mine, have no effect on reality.