0 sats \ 6 replies \ @l0k18 9 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: Drivechains - BitMEX Research bitcoin
Mainly that rule about the 256. It requires the miners to know about them and not allow more. Which is retarded.
I don't see why the 256 rule matters. If there are no more slots on the main chain, make more slots on an existing drivechain.
reply
The 256 is a soft rule to put people like you at ease. It's a nice neat computerphile friendly multiple of 4 and fits in with the whole 32 bit theme of DC. I am sure it is completely arbitrary as is the 6 months downstream withdrawal limit which was also added to put neurotics at ease. If there is ever a need for more, that is if the market would ever actually find more than 256 unique uses for sidechains than more can be added.
The 256 is more for you than it is the network. It's a nice easy number to lube up virgin bitcoin maxi's.
reply
How much closer to straight up potty mouth are you going to take this guy?
reply
Depends on how much more you are going to hold back on sharing your technical and logical arguments against DC instead of just spilling them out, or if you don't have any stop taking silly pot shots accross my entire comment history that don't make sense.
reply
Why does DC have to be on bitcoin?
Why is DC better than a straight hard fork?
Simple questions, Should only take one sentence each.
reply
The gall of you demanding simple, one sentence replies is hilarious given your history of long winded replies that say nothing.
I will gladly answer your questions if you will demonstrate even a minimal understanding of drivechain and the rationale its proponents have for it, at some point.
First, DC is not "on" bitcoin. As a side chain it is a side process. A value adding feature like many BIP's. Some are implemented without breaking BTC, others are used or ignored by wallets and miners at the consumers discretion. "On" bitcoin would be something like Bitcoin script or UTXO's, core features that are bitcoin itself. BIP 39 for instance is not "on" bitcoin, it's a value added improvement that impoves user interaction. For me this distinction is important
DC is already hardforked, It has a testnet hardfork of bitcoin to test new features and transition for main, along with an implementation of zcash and eth as examples of what can be done.
Bitcoin should adopt DC because of its ability to absorb technologies (like ETH or Zcash or Monero) without the approval of core devs and without bloating bitcoin core with more and more code, it is insurance against future technologies that might make bitcoin irrelevant with the added benefits of market/user driven innovation
reply