668ce - 2y
Michael nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m does not want Bitcoin to be a P2P digital currency that destroys central banks. He wants a rock that he can cash in for CBDC tokens in the future. Saylor has said several times that Bitcoin will not be a currency, but an important commodity for the US dollar. He also doesn’t want Bitcoin to have private transactions and ownership. He worries this will threaten the establishment, and explicitly says if you want privacy, "maybe you want to buy a Monero". Which means Saylor does believe there is a "second best", and Bitcoin is not a threat to the establishment. Bitcoin needs to absorb all functions of shitcoins on L2s and make them obsolete. This is probably why Saylor doesn’t like #drivechains. If the chain splits, I expect Saylor and BlackRock to pump the hard fork without drivechains. I’m staying with Bitcoin. https://youtu.be/ccJ33hLaMF0?si=4B7dSZzVHaHNcLd4
No, I don’t want Monero. Monero is a shitcoin. I want to copy Monero’s code and use it to transact my Bitcoin, while L1 secures the 21 million.
I don’t mind if corporations use Bitcoin. I want it to be the world’s money. But for the plebs, we need a decentralized L2 with cash-like privacy and scalability. This needs to be something we are comfortable with storing the majority of our wealth into. I don’t want my life savings to be on Wallet of Satoshi when I cannot afford L1.
Merrcurr⚡️ @Merrcurr - 2y
Capsule, my man, been a while 🤙🏻 I welcome BlackRock and others into the ecosystem. They are necessary evils. [809709]
L1 needs to be transparent. That ensures the 21 million. On a sidechain, it’s a 1-to-1 peg to Bitcoin, so the maximum amount of total sidechain coins is 21 million. The small blocksize on L1 lets us all ensure that with a full node.
Hey Merrcurr 🤙 So I don’t care if BlackRock invests in Bitcoin. The issue is they have already said if the Bitcoin chain splits, they may not choose the "real Bitcoin". Now there are a lot of people on Twitter saying they will refuse drivechains, and essentially hard fork off of Bitcoin to ensure drivechains are not being confirmed by their node.
7ca66 - 2y
Blackrock is used to a world where it’s size means power. That doesn’t apply in Bitcoin consensus. Their node is no bigger or more relevant than any other. They might be able to make more noise in the media or find more FUD but they can’t directly decide anything other than their own ETF and a Bitcoin ETF using non-Bitcoin is gonna fail.
💯 I just worry that when Bitcoin forks from drivechains, they will quickly pump the fork. This, mixed with the contentiousness around drivechains, could push a lot of people to switch- thinking they are saving Bitcoin and a hero of the new Drivechain War
Well. These plebs are reacting to noise rather than reason. But let me read about drivechains first, i don't know enough about it [809709]
You may want to start here. Consider if it makes sense, because you’re going to see a lot of the big names in Bitcoin condemning it. https://www.drivechain.info
Drivechains aren’t happening so I wouldn’t worry about it.
Weren't they already discussed since 2015? Why are they back on the table today? [809711]
In the video above, Saylor explains why Bitcoin shouldn’t be private. Here is an article where he says: "I don’t really think that Bitcoin’s going to be currency in the US ever. Nor do I think it should be. I really think logically it should be treated as property. It’s like owning a building, or owning a bar of gold, or owning a share of stock. It’s property." https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2021/07/microstrategy-ceo-michael-saylor-bitcoins-not-going-to-be-currency-in-the-us-ever/
They could happen if there is a MASF, and I have searched through every L2 "solution" I can find, and nothing compares to them. I really think they should happen.
My only guess is nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 likes them, and he said something about it on Twitter. Paul (the creator of the BIP) is paying Luke Dashjr to write the code.
Miners aren’t going to fork off, they still need the nodes for consensus and there is absolutely no will for drivechains amongst noderunners. Could happen yes, probability is very low to the point it’s barely worth considering. It’s why I haven’t bothered engaging in any of the debate, it’s clear it’s a non-starter. There’s a lot left to extract from what’s already on the truck today before worrying about DCs.
Those articles are hieroglyphics to me. What does a drivechain do exactly? Why would Bitcoin need anything like this right now? What added "functionalities" and "security" do they provide? I mean Taproot was clear. [809713]
That’s the thing though, miners don’t have to fork off Bitcoin. It’s a softfork, so they just have to start running the code and mining the blocks. Nodes that don’t upgrade won’t even notice. Forking off of Bitcoin would mean drivechains are merged, and then another fork without drivechains but with something else (CTV?) would be introduced. That would break the longest timechain, but it would put that fork in the direction Saylor wants it to go.
With drivechains, privacy tech and larger blocks for scalability would be on an L2, so that L1 isn’t effected. If they were merged before SegWit and Taproot, we wouldn’t have a 4x blocksize increase or monkee jpegs on L1. The way it works is you send your Bitcoin to a special address and receive a 1-to-1 peg to a copy of a shitcoin’s code. So you wouldn’t actually receive Monero. You would receive something like Bit-Monero, that has the exact same functionality (private transactions), but limited to Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap. Whenever you want to peg out, you burn the L2 coin and request your Bitcoin from the miners. They don’t know who you are or care whatsoever. All they want to do is check if the peg-out hash is valid, mine the block, and get the fees. Does that make sense so far?
But how can you ensure the security and integrity of the peg-out process when transitioning between Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 1 (L1) in this solution? [809717]
The security of the peg-out is backed by the greed of the miners. They are incentivized to mine the blocks and keep the system going with PoW. So it’s a bunch of game-theory and everything that currently keeps Bitcoin secure. If a sidechain is successful, the miners get a steady income of actual L1 Bitcoin from it. So an L2 could be just as decentralized as BitcoinCASH (which is much better than Liquid or Fedimints), have increasingly better technology and privacy, and be completely backed by L1.
The Daniel ⚡️ and 84 sats @daniel - 2y
I have no plans to run this BIP on my node. I don't trust any so-called "urgent" protocol changes. It sounds way too convoluted and risky.
That is a perfectly reasonable response. But if the Core devs say they have another "soft fork" that doesn’t include drivechains, but includes CTV, would you leave the highest timechain?
I don’t have a use for drivechains or CTV myself but I will always support whatever the consensus fork is to preserve the longest PoW chain. I just don’t see why any of this is critical for bitcoin to succeed.
