pull down to refresh

[WIP] BIP300 (Drivechains) consensus-level logic by luke-jrgithub.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28311
4630 sats \ 21 comments \ @Rsync25 22 Aug 2023 bitcoin
write
preview
related posts
1095 sats \ 3 replies \ @melvincarvalho 22 Aug 2023
Pull request for drive chains, possibly the biggest change in bitcoin's history.
IMHO two issues remain:
  1. From a user POV the game theory starts off stable then quickly becomes unstable when you plug in real world values. Therefore, there is a chance that participants will lose the coins they lend to the miners, due to the much weaker security of drivechains.
  2. While DC has the good idea of trying to deter reorgs due to tail emissions and preventing a the need for the fork. It comes at the cost of any of the 256 coins blowing up and then spreading up to the main chain, which would require a fork too, to put right. So instead of one vector for a fork, there would be 256.
Consequently, I dont think drivechains are ready to merge. Some changes to the concept to improve the security, and to limit the risk of a fork could see it, or something like it, become part of the bitcoin eco system, in the future.
reply
200 sats \ 1 reply \ @0fje0 22 Aug 2023
... possibly the biggest change in bitcoin's history
I'm certainly not technical enough to know how big this is, but I've seen enough posts lately about drive chains to sense that I should try and understand more about what's going on.
For those in the know: is the debate about drive chains in any way comparable to the block size debate of 2016/17 in terms of scale, importance, potential "war", etc?
Or is this just normal core devs debating that I'm just more aware of this time round? I see (for example), that @petertodd doesn't like luke's approach. But is this cause for concern, or just healthy debate?
Genuinely just curios to know.
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @evbosats 23 Aug 2023
Nah this is Layer 2 Labs paying Luke-Jr to refactor the code, and an army of paid shills for drivechain. Guarantee in 1 year this is forgotten when Layer 2 labs runs out of money.
reply
180 sats \ 0 replies \ @llamabyte 23 Aug 2023
It's not. It's just a solicitation for review of his approach. People are volunteering NACK's because they can't read, and did not read the post, like they do with drivechain.
reply
103 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 22 Aug 2023
Interesting salvo.
As a consensus change, this can only be implemented with community support. Many people seem to have opinions, but please keep them to other forums. Despite providing and continuing this implementation, I myself do not thereby endorse or otherwise comment on the proposal itself.
I haven't paid that close attention to how things traditionally play out when somebody does a nice implementation of a contentious BIP, as per Jeremy Rubin. Will be interesting to see what unfolds.
reply
60 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 22 Aug 2023
The thief of Luke's sats maybe is paying him to work against himself? It all sounds a little bit suspicious to me.
reply
89 sats \ 14 replies \ @shyfire 22 Aug 2023
Does this help fix money?
reply
21 sats \ 13 replies \ @JulienPH 22 Aug 2023
If Drivechain can replace all the (illusory) usecase of altcoins, there will no longer be any reason for capital to turn away from Bitcoin, even if the effect is not total and there will still be gamblers, the market cap of BTC will increase, and trading will decrease too. If more adoption, and if we are more united behind a single currency / project, we can more quickly eat other assets such as gold, bonds and stocks. Sounds good to me
reply
1230 sats \ 3 replies \ @melvincarvalho 22 Aug 2023
It would be great if it did that. But it doesnt, at least, not in its current form.
The weakness of the system is that the whole monetary base is predicated upon lending your coins to miners. Those miners may not give those coins back. In fact, in any game theory simulation, the miners should wipe out the lenders, because they are making bad choices.
This kind of weak security cannot compete with alts, let alone gold.
If we can find a way to remove the potential, or even inevitable, security holes, the concept could be a good one. But more thought is required.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin_ 22 Aug 2023
In fact, in any game theory simulation, the miners should wipe out the lenders, because they are making bad choices.
please show us this "game theory simulation", in full detail.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0fje0 22 Aug 2023
In fact, in any game theory simulation, the miners should wipe out the lenders, because they are making bad choices.
Just to clarify: 'they' being the lenders, right?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IanMalcolmPhd 22 Aug 2023
He meant it would be unwise for the miners to give the coins back.
reply
1163 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 22 Aug 2023
Sure, but then you get the host of grifters that is attracted by the herd of gamblers lobbying for their next scam platforms on Bitcoin. Also, if a big portion of the economic activity were to be going on in one of the drivechains, there would be pressure on wallet projects to add support. That would increase the complexity of wallets and workload for developers. I see how it might extend the capabilities of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but I’m not sure I like the second-order effects.
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin_ 22 Aug 2023
if a big portion of the economic activity were to be going on in one of the drivechains, there would be pressure on wallet projects to add support. That would increase the complexity of wallets and workload for developers.
as there is for lightning or rootstock or nostr or whatever else users demand. wallet developers can either go along with the user demands, or not. their choice.
reply
210 sats \ 0 replies \ @evbosats 23 Aug 2023
It won’t replace shitcoins because shitcoins aren’t about utility they’re about pre-miners and VC’s making money off the backs of retail. How do people not understand this?
reply
103 sats \ 5 replies \ @tetsu_tamasi 22 Aug 2023
No it wont. Shitcoins will always exist. This is bullshit reasoning. Shitcoiners will make new hot thing and they will flock there. Appeasing gamblers should not be a reasoning for BIP.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ramenbased 22 Aug 2023
yea who cares shit pennystocks also exist. either shitcoins are irrelevant or they are so important that they dictate all of our decisions.. pick one.
i dont even care about the security budget when it comes to bip300, i just cant handle lightning being peak innovation cus its not all that impressive at the end of the day.
even culturally, bip300 would mean that bitcoin is finally freed from incel lifecoach mentor influencers which might potentially make me stack again.
reply
7 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bitcoinisawesome 23 Aug 2023
Yeah you damned shitcoiner!!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ramenbased 5 Sep 2023
dont you have some twitter influencers dick to ride?
reply
7 sats \ 1 reply \ @evbosats 23 Aug 2023
How does drivechain remove toxic maxi’s like you describe? That’s just fucking stupid thinking. If you need bitcoin to have shitcoin characteristics to keep stacking then you might as well go buy shitcoins, shitcoiner.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ramenbased 5 Sep 2023
dont you have some twitter influencers dick to ride?
reply