0 sats \ 2 replies \ @netstatic 18 Aug 2023 \ on: Drivechains are effectively a block size increase? bitcoin
It’s effectively a blocksize increase in utility. You can do more with your BTC. It’s not a blocksize increase in L1 nodes. Decentralization at the base layer is preserved.
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.
write
preview
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.
They can partner with someone else to run the sidechain node and collect the fees regardless.
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.
Key distinction is that decentralization at the base layer is unaffected.
I agree with this.
reply