related posts
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @mallardshead 18 Aug 2023
From the article:
Like? The highest value use case for a coin or token is money, and I don't see anything you can do with Drivechain you can't with other sidechains (none ever attracted significant network effects), or what you won't be able to do better using Lightning in the coming years. What's the hurry to spike the fuck out of transaction fees? Let 2050 come in 2050, not 2023.
Drivechain is ancient, it was proposed years before the Lightning Network's White Paper, now we have all this innovation that's turning a radical corner and makes Drivechain look quite silly. Drivechain is a distraction. As far as BIPs go, a vault/covenant might be worth having a discussion on, but Drivechain? Needs to go back into the pre-covid trash heap.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @netstatic 18 Aug 2023
Bitcoin as it stands today, while effective as an asset class, will not be able to support all the needs we have of money for transactions. Lightning works great now, but obviously there are problems like the on-chain footprint needed to establish a channel.
What I would like to know is how drivechains will spike transaction fees in any meaningful way (compared to something like inscriptions)? The only way I can make sense of what you're implying is if you're referring to BIP301 transactions somehow being enough to spike the transaction fee?
Regardless, that doesn't need to happen to make Bitcoin mining more sustainable. The hope with drivechains is not just to spike the amount in fees but make Bitcoin more valuable by allowing it to be used as a "buy-in" mechanism to other blockchains.
Also, drivechains being an old idea says nothing to its credibility as a scaling solution today. Decentralized cash is an old idea. The idea of payment channels is also old, and predates the official lightning network paper. Discrediting an idea because of the time of its invention is misguided and ignores the possibility of improvements that could be made over time.
You can hate drivechains for their implementation or because of a part of it's game theory you don't like and I won't say anything, but I'd at least hope for the biggest criticizers to at least know about what they're arguing against.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @mallardshead 18 Aug 2023
There's always a simple subtext with chain-gang (drive-chain, side-chain, space-chain, etc) ambitions which is this: pump my bags. You're all in a hurry somewhere. Where to? Quickland, of get rich fame. Bitcoin is a store of value. And it's on a very long, difficult, and organic road from store of value to transactional currency. Many projects think they can leapfrog this process. Not if first principles are to be retained on the other side of monetization. And bitcoin as the world's unit of account? Not happening for a very long time. It doesn't need to support the world today. Doesn't need to support the world anytime soon. It's liquidity isn't needed to "buy-in" to other blockchains. The first world doesn't need bitcoin right now. Mining doesn't need higher fees. The future of mining has nothing to do with trying to beat the economy of scale to profit, and everything to do with censorship resistance, be that for nation states or businesses. How much value can you fit into a single block? The chain-gang hasn't figured any of this out yet, or how the hashpower baseline gets set, which is why they love their MEV, derivatives, and artificial solutions.
And this is a false equivalence. Decentralized money is the innovation, separation of money from state is the radical idea. Scaling for the volume we have is more than sufficient. So is hashpower in relative terms. We're growing and developing at the rate of Yoda. The BTC/USD pair have many phase changes to work through. As for Lightning, I'd suggest paying attention to the directional design pattern and innovation there. The concerns you highlight are moving towards deprecation, like Drivechain.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @netstatic 18 Aug 2023
Things need to be fought for in an aggressive manner in this space even if the hope is for adoption over the long-term. Otherwise you get hanging specs like anyprevout that is well understood and researched but can't overcome the natural opposition of the community to change without a fighting champion.
That's all short term thinking. If we work on your timeline of scalability it'll be too late.
Your usage of "need" is subjective. I believe first world countries "need" reform on all layers of the financial sector to not become like the countries you're thinking "need" it today.
It seems you haven't figured out how Bitcoin works and that miners need to stay economically incentivized to allow the emergent properties of censorship resistance to exist.
You think Wei was thinking B-Money would be adopted by the state back in the late 90s? lol
reply
160 sats \ 0 replies \ @lpop4254 17 Aug 2023
F*ck drivechain
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @netstatic 18 Aug 2023
That is not what the tweet was trying to say. It's a criticism of drivechains lol. It's referring to miners having to run sidechain nodes to validate the proposed bundles for withdrawal.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @JakeBlockchain OP 19 Aug 2023
They don't have to though. They can partner with someone else to run the sidechain node and collect the fees regardless.
Key distinction is that decentralization at the base layer is unaffected.
How it plays out on higher level sidechains is up for debate.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @netstatic 21 Aug 2023
If the miners want to validate the sidechain node, they would have to have as much access to a sidechain information source as they would for the mainchain.
The same can technically be said for mining. A node doesn't have to be run and all information and broadcasts can work through using an http api for example.
I agree with this.
reply