pull down to refresh
5885 sats \ 11 replies \ @benthecarman 2 Sep 2023 \ on: What's the TLDR for Drive Chains? bitcoin
It basically enables sidechains like liquid but instead of a 11 of 15 multisig hold custody, the miners hold custody. Imo it's a terrible idea because this will screw with mining incentives and give them an option to steal from users instead having the incentive to always just mine the next block. It also can bring regulatory risk to miners, if they have custody of funds, they could be forced to get licenses and all that bs
Besides there's zero demand for any of these. The only people that are pro-drivechains are devs with some strange kind of fetiche for these obscure mechanisms that no one wants to use.
reply
Thanks for sharing, never thought about it on from this perspective
reply
The risk to sidechains is a 51% attack, same as the main chain itself.
reply
Nope. Drivechains can be attacked with less than 51%
reply
reply
A 51% attack can't steal from liquid but it can steal from a drivechain
reply
A 51% attack certainly could steal from the liquid multisig via double-spending.
reply
You'd probably need more than 51% to attack Liquid.
Pegging in BTC to Liquid requires 102 confirmations. Even if an attacker had 51% of the hashrate it'd probably be insanely difficult to cause a 102 block reorg.
You'd probably need way more than that, but I'm not sure how much. Also Liquid could just increase the amount of confirmations required more and more if a potential 51% attack is underway
reply
Okay, a miner can steal back their funds. But they can't just take everything that is custodied in the chain
reply
drivechain does not require legal representation or trusted parties
it just requires people to behave in an honest way out of self-interest.
reply
Completely false. You are giving up custody to miners, they become trusted 3rd parties.
reply