21 sats \ 13 replies \ @JulienPH 22 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: [WIP] BIP300 (Drivechains) consensus-level logic by luke-jr bitcoin
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
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
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
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
He meant it would be unwise for the miners to give the coins back.
reply
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
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
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
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
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
Yeah you damned shitcoiner!!
reply
dont you have some twitter influencers dick to ride?
reply
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
dont you have some twitter influencers dick to ride?
reply