CC: @preston

It’s described in the drivechain BIP. I can’t remember the exact cap. But it would be the last change needed to bitcoin. Lightning doesn’t scale to 8 billion people mathematically but having multiple sidechains would. Sure let’s all just keep using custodial lightning with zero privacy and pretend this is best thing since sliced bread while ignoring the bitcoin white paper.

Excuse me, sir. Have you heard about Fedimint yet? No changes to base layer needed.

Mix and match Elements. Fedimint. Cashu. Theres no reason BIP300 would be the last upgrade. Thats koolaid talk

Please help me understand the risks better. All I’m hearing at the moment is that people don’t want sidechains to use BTC as a native currency. How that negatively impacts bitcoin is unclear.

Good luck fellow traveler. The exact issues ellude me as well, but in general its always best to err on the side of not changing bitcoin because you never know how it will turn out. Unlike centralized systems, we have no reset switch.

Sidechains cant have BTC as a native currency. They all are their own token even if named similarly and with 1 for 1 pegging like Liquid or anything else built with Elements. Drivechain is a different approach than peg-in/out that Liquid uses but it still has a process to get into and out of that sidechain. But instead of dealing with a discreet federation, its vetted by miners via hashrate escrows. Theres a limit of 256 slots making them rare and they can only be facilitated by miners. A normal user can not make or manage their own sidechain with drivechain. Its a centralized permissioned protocol.