pull down to refresh

I still don't get what a DriveChain is.
3962 sats \ 18 comments \ @IgnaciobTato 22 Sep 2023 bitcoin
As the title explains. I still don't get it.
I understand sidechains like Liquid, RSK or Lighnting (my favs) but not what a drivechain is. It is said that Liquid and RSK are federated but that RSK intends to be a Drivechain.
How do you simply define a Drivechain and its features?
write
preview
related posts
354 sats \ 3 replies \ @huluvublue 22 Sep 2023
A drivechain is a sidechain that has a special hashrate escrow L1 BTC address with no private keys to accomplish the "two way peg." Peg ins are fast, peg outs are slow. Drivechains have the option to be Blind Merge Mined, this is a method where the sidechain txn fees are paid in L1 btc to bitcoin miners. The goals of DC are to scale the network with permissionless L2s where users can onboard in a self custody manner while securing the future of txn fees. If the future L2 solutions do not pay txn fees it effectively competes with L1, weakening the security of the network as the mining incentives (txn fees) decrease
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Ribbit 22 Sep 2023
If the future L2 solutions do not pay txn fees it effectively competes with L1, weakening >the security of the network as the mining incentives (txn fees) decrease
L2 solutions that do not pay txns fees also do not have users, so miners will point elsewhere. Security is not reduced.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @huluvublue 22 Sep 2023
Im talking about txn fees being paid exclusively to L2 validators rather than L1 miners. Liquid doesnt pay miners, blockstream and the federation or whatev make the txn fees. Botanix spiderchains is a new example of a remora chain that will have users but not pay txn fees to BTC L1 miners. Stacks does/did this too it has users. You can have other scaling "solutions" like WBTC that simultaneously drive demand for BTC but gives txn fees to a competitor network, if WBTC txns were RSK txns there would be (napkin math, rsk has 3500 btc payin 1 btc per month in txn fees to L1, wbtc like 150k, zero fees to L1) another 50 BTC per month in txn fees, probably way more though. May seem small now but in 8 years the added txn fees will be essential for the security of the network.
reply
200 sats \ 0 replies \ @Ribbit 22 Sep 2023
So if i understand you correctly, drivechains and BMM are prefferable to L2's that do not pay L1 fees.
Edit: I just realized who you are. we are on the same side in this debate :D so i re-read what you were saying
reply
474 sats \ 5 replies \ @mallardshead 22 Sep 2023
It's a faux security budget solution that lost to Lightning and is here to make us all pay for it.
reply
105 sats \ 4 replies \ @patrick1 23 Sep 2023
Has lightning really "won"? Less than 5k bitcoins are in the lightning network. Over 165,000 are locked up on Ethereum.
There are like 3k locked up in liquid, more in rootstock.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Muuny 23 Sep 2023
how do you say you've never run a lightning node, without saying it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @patrick1 23 Sep 2023
And yet I have run a routing node for two years.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @mallardshead 23 Sep 2023
You're quoting public (routing) channels. Most channels are private. LN is a velocity and transactional layer. The difference between the LN and blockchains you mention is that I can't run a node on Liquid because it's a federated model of 15 special companies (although their dynaFED upgrade will certainly help this). And WBTC is a centralized product run by a faux DAO of 30 shady companies including BitGo. Lightning is cool because there is no LN network, but your LN network. It's a bunch of different implementations working together and interoperable through BOLT spec, sort of like the internet protocols.
The simple, light, and free LN wallets available on desktop, mobile, extensions, etc, are getting better. The direction is towards self-custody and they include an LN node. When Zerosync and ZKs hit, we'll have wallets that are fully validating with a full L1 and L2 node on your smartphone. Add in splicing, scripting etc, and the lines between L1/L2 get quite blurry. I mentioned previously the directional design pattern of Lightning. You have to consider that when considering federated chains like Liquid, or ancient merge mine products like Drivechain. How are sidechains competing with something that's instant, nearly free, fully validating, and moves between layers seamlessly? By integrating it, just like the CEXs have already done, and just like every other blockchain eventually will do.
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @patrick1 23 Sep 2023
You actually can run a node on liquid. You can't run a validator (miner equivalent).
Yes, we can't know how many Bitcoin are locked up in private channels, but the public network is a good indicator of the order of magnitude we're talking about.
Most people believe that private channel capacity is some fraction of public capacity.
I'm not sure why you included all of this other information. I'm already aware.
reply
110 sats \ 2 replies \ @patrick1 22 Sep 2023
A drivechain is a sidechain where funds are custodied by the Bitcoin miners. Rather than using a multisig with a permissioned federation of signers to control on-chain funds (for peg-ins/peg-outs), miners control the funds as a defacto (permissionless) federation.
That's really it at the end of the day.
Pro: it's permissionless. Any miner can "join" the federation. This makes launching a sidechain much easier and thus encourages more innovation.
Con: it will probably lead to more miner centralization because of increased complexity.
One con people often bring up is that miners could steal funds from the sidechain. This would require 51% of miners to agree to steal the funds. This seems incredibly unlikely, and if it did happen we'd have much bigger problems on our hands.
reply
50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Ribbit 22 Sep 2023
51% for 3 to 6 months with no one noticing
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IgnaciobTato OP 22 Sep 2023
Thank you. So its in idea focused for the miners to avoid sending their funds and keep them themselves on custody to lock them up so that you can get a token like rBTC. This would be faster and more secure then. Maybe sidechains like RSK can get more funds if they convert themselves to DriveChains getting more funds from miners, right? That would increasea the adoption or rbtc that adds programmability to btc and also their stablecoin DoC, which runs under rsk and is backed by bitcoin.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @legxxi 22 Sep 2023
Shitcoins that attach like leeches to our beloved Bitcoin, there you go.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @037447d9ca 23 Sep 2023
A drivechain is a sidechain backed by L1 security.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Muuny 23 Sep 2023
My favorite part of the drivechain discussion is that the academia oppressed 'coders' just want clout for doing some coding. It's like the Nobel prize, totally worthless but convinces some other academia oppressed people that they are better than others.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Stacksats 22 Sep 2023
Ha. Not worth it!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Ribbit 22 Sep 2023
Short Video
reply