pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @03479d0ee6 29 Jan \ on: WHY ARE YOU NOT JUMPING UP AND DOWN ABOUT SPIDERCHAIN?! bitcoin
I'm not a fan of sidechains I don't think they have much to offer for bitcoin, bitcoiners don't want ethereum like capabilities. Bitcoin just has to be good money, sidechains have the problem of permission to peg out. I think bitvm could solve this to have permissionless peg outs but, until it's done there is always the tradeoff of trust with more or less multisigs. Sidechains all have the same ideia, only the security model changes, drivechains put the trust on miners, Liquid on exchanges from the federation, and spiderchains on a proof of stake model. It's all tradeoffs, sidechains are only good to have something for degens, defi, gambling etc, bitcoiners don't have that interest and will choose base chain and lightning because its just money functions and the most trustless. Sidechains dont improve much about scalibility because of trust, and peg in/out extra step.
Thanks, I'll look into bitVM.
I also don't want Ethereum capabilities, but in order to be "good money" as you say, Bitcoin must scale by orders of magnitude. Otherwise it is "just" the best store of value, which will end up being used by custodians to back a fractional reserve currency.
reply
Well transaction scaling, lightning and other solutions including custodial and other solutions that will come along will probably be enough. Custodial might be ok for a few dollars. The biggest problem might be ownership scaling, if fees get too high many people won't be able to use base chain. For that i think Fedimint might be a better option than sidechains, bc at least i can choose who to trust with my keys, can be some friends of mine, or some known bitcoiners. Otherwise, only increasing the blocksize, which should be done imo in the future if there is demand.