0 sats \ 3 replies \ @gregory 10 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: deleted by author bitcoin
I'm a bit of a drivechain noob, but this seems kinda like Liquid Network in that it's federated trust.
It's just via Sentinels as opposed to Liquid's set of ~15 trusted entities.
Is the idea that this strikes a balance between: On the one hand have miners being the authority that can allow illegal peg outs with a 51% attack (like most side chain proposals I've seen), and on the other hand having 15 assigned authorities (like Liquid)?
I think it could be better than other proposals, but I wanna make sure I understand.
Haven't read up on this proposal yet, but on your observation on the similarities with Liquid, there is a bit of history.... https://www.drivechain.info/blog/liquid/
reply
I can see how you might think it is a kind of distributed federation, but I would argue that it is not.
Sidechain nodes still determine consensus and can be as permissionless as you want. You can still run a sidechain node just like Bitcoin. The sidechain node acts as your personal Sentinel, telling your Bitcoin node which transactions and blocks are valid.
The “federation-sounding” part is that Sentinels can also broadcast invalid transactions via Nostr. Instead of running a full sidechain node, miners and users can trust their own PERSONAL “federation” of users of any size and makeup, and trust the other nodes to tell them the bitcoin transactions to ignore.
This is fully optional for all parties and merely serves as a way for people to on board to a sidechain and participate without running a node for every chain.
reply
deleted by author
reply