Paul Sztorc has been doing the podcast rounds recently (see this link) promoting his vision for drivechains
I am not very knowledgeable on this subject, but I'd love to get input from the community. How do people feel about this proposal?
121 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 16 Aug 2022
- If its a soft fork, then just run it. Soft forks don't require other nodes to upgrade.
- Not really interested in something built around shitcoinery
reply
115 sats \ 0 replies \ @m4 16 Aug 2022
Bitcoin is money and should be focused on that purpose.
reply
202 sats \ 0 replies \ @rijndael 16 Aug 2022
I think he downplays the miner incentive distortions. I think if we do drivechains, it means every drivechain community now has to apply political pressure to miners to make sure that the “right” withdrawl transactions get processed. This has a real potential of affecting L1. No thanks.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @super_testnet 16 Aug 2022
Drivechains are awesome because they allow for financial experiments that benefit bitcoin. There are two chains that do stuff that a small number of real people seem genuinely interested in: eth and xmr. But to use these chains, people have to buy altcoins, which harms bitcoin slightly and benefits scammers immensely. Drivechains make it so that the features of eth and xmr exist on chains where transactions sill benefit bitcoin. The users of an eth-like drivechain or an xmr-like drivechain would not have to buy an altcoin to use them, and all fees paid to create drivechain blocks end up in the pockets of the bitcoin miners who help secure our coins. So yeah I'm a fan.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 22 Aug 2023
From what I understand and please do correct me if I’m wrong, at least 50% of the hashrate has to opt-in to support a drivechain, and all users that are interested in the drivechain need to run a client that supports it. If a very significant portion of the economic activity of the Bitcoin ecosystem moves to a drivechain, wallets will be pushed to adding support for it. It seems to me that activating drivechains would very likely significantly increase complexity of Bitcoin software in the medium-term.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Modus 16 Aug 2022
I'm not sure if Liquid "did it wrong" or the issue is more that nobody gives a crap.
Shitcoinery does not benefit from what he describes. Shitcoiners are much better off creating their own tokens and platforms. He gives a few possible exceptions like Monero, but Monero doesn't seem to want to be backed by bitcoin mining. They have their own mining. They like it that way.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @premitive1 16 Aug 2022
From what little I understand about it them seem very interesting, but I can't fully comprehend the technical meaning of the proposal. Hopefully one day I can take the time to do so.
I don't personally worry about these things too much. I worry more about bitcoin getting changed too much too quickly than the other way around.
I keep forgetting to ask about ossification in relation to bip300
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @leonardo 16 Aug 2022
I really would like to see this softfork implemented.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibreLoya 17 Aug 2022
I don't care about shitcoinery but I do care about non-custodial privacy.
If drivechains can achieve that via a L2 zcash/monero with Satoshi units i am totally in.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 17 Aug 2022
I think it's a cool feature but not one that is really needed right now, it could suck a lot of the shitcoinery into bitcoin as people try the same rug pulls on drive chains and I guess brings more users and liquidity but is that really something we want to bring to btc?
as for the miner incentive and collusion possibilities, not much has been discussed on that front, and I'd like to know more about the downsides
reply