Replies (133)
Beautifully put 👏
#bitcoin needs a catchy equivalent to NIMBY that means not on my node.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 'money' is already broke and Bitcoin fixes this. Don't break #Bitcoin in the process!
I don't get your point.
Centralized shitcoin projects already exist and many of them have a centralized peg to Bitcoin, but their shitcoin is the native currency and a fundamental part of everything.
Drivechain is about making non-shitcoin projects that use Bitcoin, help Bitcoin, pay fees to Bitcoin and increase Bitcoin network-effect.
So you are against any new soft-forks? Were you against Taproot?
Are these non-shitcoin projects with us in the room right now?
OP_VAULT opinions?
Bitcoin doesn’t need “help” from other protocols and projects. Bitcoin needs central bankers to keep going out and adding another 10 trillion units into the system and then handing it out to people for performing no work. And they will…they have to…because the liquidity isn’t flowing into the hands of the broader populace because all the equity has been consolidated into the hands of a couple people. Bitcoin just needs to be left the F alone. The people running clown world are doing all the heavy lifting. “Don’t interrupt your enemy when they’re getting ready to make the same mistake…yet again”.
It does have an effect when it requires a change to support and influences miner behavior
And who controls the vetting for the limited number of drivechains that could be supported
I tend to agree with your point on drive chains, there really is no rush and we have more pressing matters at hand. But ossification? We are going to need a hard fork eventually (timestamps), and we should think about getting that done while were all still alive to pull it off, and I'd argue we should do it without wipeout protection meaning...soon, since we are playing against dangerous people like governments and financial institutions.
Well said, feature not a bug. 💯
Mix and match
Elements. Fedimint. Cashu.
Theres no reason BIP300 would be the last upgrade. Thats koolaid talk
Maybe
🎯
I don't happen to believe in the "security budget" nor in stablecoins.
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.
Can we all agree there is a lack of communication between turbonerd L1 dev gods and the rest of us? At times I feel like running a node makes me a risk to bitcoin, if I pick the wrong side in these changes I could contribute to royally fucking all of us.
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.
Ironically
@fiatjaf seems to have this principle perfectly internalized as Nostr's inventor and lead designer, but not as a bitcoiner 😅
Yep, 100%. Your statements about foundational layers of systems being necessarily simple are spot-on, IMHO. I wonder if we are at the beginning of Block Wars v2. While I'm very excited about BTC, I occasionally fret that we will eventually kill this golden goose.
If you want fancy L1 function, buy ETH.
When you're a hammer the whole world is a nail. Just because it might be technically simple dosnt mean it's low risk.
I've encountered a bunch of people that think there is no "security budger" issue, but none of them have given any explanation on why. Do you have one? A link, maybe? You don't think Bitcoin mining has to be paid for?
I believe that the network works at any compensation level, there is no need to throw extra fees at the miners for their own sake. If some miners cannot survive they'll sell their equipment on the cheap to others that will keep mining profitably.
This is all an #attack on #bitcoin, nothing more..⚖️👮♂️
What about the problem that a network with very small hashpower becomes an easy target for government attacks?
We're going to have to have some alternate #Bitcoin development. Virtuous #Bitcoin #development. #Pure Bitcoin development. No external non-Bitcoin crap..🗽🧡
Why should hashrate ever decrease, though? ASIC can be liquidated cheaper and cheaper until it's profitable to plug them again.
As a user cresting transactions like today? No direct impact. For node operators, marginal resource need, but well short of that from other changes made in the past.
I have no desire to enter into another blocksize war but I will if I have to.
First of all there's a problem with TapRoot and #inscriptions. They may both have to be removed.
Drivechains are just more the same, only worse..😠
Is it good or bad for #Bitcoin. The answer is it's bad for Bitcoin. It's a #security risk for Bitcoin. Consequently it's a risk for everyone who owns and supports Bitcoin. Not acceptable..😏
We don't want #sidechains filling the Bitcoin #blockchain with a lot of garbage that adds expense and security risk to owners of #Bitcoin, and to the #fullnodes. Fullnodes are the linchpins of Bitcoin..💣
I don't know enough about drivechains. Generally speaking, I do not want my money being changed without extroardinary consensus, which I do not believe drivechains has garnered.
Sure. Let's do it. But first find me ONE altcoin that we ACTUALLY NEED and has a future-proof use-case. ONE.
Otherwise it's just adding complexity to #bitcoin for what - naive wish for number to go up by trying to bring some altcoins to bitcoin? It's not worth the risk. Nor I see any significant benefits that we would actually need on bitcoin right now.
And shitcoins are gonna shitcoin because people want to create their own money printers. So it won't help us with scammy competition at all.
Well said, have a zap
Everything is good for Bitcoin 🙂
The veiled threats of these people to push their shady agendas are unacceptable. This is not the way. Why are they not here on #nostr, the place full of bitcoiners?
These are too high, and they have to be cut to the Bone..⚖️👮♂️😠
If the total miner reward per block is $10 how much hashpower do you think you will get?
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" it ain't broke except for #inscriptions..👎
Fees are too high, and have to be cut to the Bone. Dang autocorrect..🖕
100% let the base layer harden. Build whatever you want on layer 2,3,4 etc. Leave the base layer alone.
🎯
Lmao. This is embarrasing.
Usually I like your takes. Never evem addressed what makes any blockstream or ll any different.
A government can then buy a bunch of cheap ASICs and destroy Bitcoin?
While I'm not on board with absolute ossification long term, I'm with Preston and Lyn on on this. Drivechain will not get my vote.
Bitcoin thrives and survives on an inherent conservatism which cautions against doing anything to rash. Or much of anything at all, if it doesn't absolutely need to happen.
View quoted note →Exactly, and it is not incumbent upon any current user to explain why a change may be a bad idea. The default position is no change. Instead, the burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to see a change to give a sufficiently convincing argument FOR their proposed change and build demand for it. But when the proposal has been around for years and arguments have been presented and there is still not enough demand or consensus to implement it, then it may very well be that it is not a necessary change, at least at this time.
Lol I quoted satoshi are you suggesting I'm putting words in his mouth or something?
Have the ETHtards taught us nothing?!
No
Agreed! Let the base layer Ossify! Let people build whatever the hell they want/need on layer 2,3,4 etc.
Terrible standard to compare against: Blockstream is a shitcoin company that has been completely financially compromised by Tether.
Lol, that's kind of my point. You and
@Deleted Account sound very similar here.
Drivechain is literally the upgrade that allows for secure scaling and building on layer 2
One I believe I can do. Monero.
Nothing else and even there I am torn, but I do believe it's an honest project with a sound tech and understandable use case.
CMIIAW
Today I learned about drivechains. I know fuck all except for what I read in a couple threads and read in 15 minutes of googling.
Give me your best why yes, why not.
Two senteces at most.
View quoted note →The lessons Bitcoin is teaching all of us about how to build a better world together are beautiful. Accountability. Strength. Logic. Debate. Cooperation. And a million others. Thanks for sharing your thoughtful views. This is how we win.
As does anyone with a spine.
simplicity
Can I get a brief tldr on the drivechain drama pls?
Preston, with all due respect, if you dont know the difference between a soft and hard fork, i dont see any point in you weighin on such technical topics, you dont know what you are talking about.(but everyone is free to share their opinion ofc)
That being said i absolutely agree with you on this point. Dont do shit that fucks up bitcoin, and make stupid trade-offs, but this is a very nuanced thing.
Not sure you know, but bitcoin looked way different a few years ago it changed quite a bit.
Some of those changes bought risk and complexity, but also allowed us to do a lot of interesting things.
FWIW SegWit was such a change, but it payed of, we fixed maleability enabled LN and other stuffs.
I am not 100% sure drivechains is the best thing, but also i dont have a hate them, but non-technical arguments, dont really convience me.
These kind of remarks just sound like whataboutisms(its a thing).
Also nodes do not vote, that is technically incorrect.
Well I'm easily bookmarking this thread. Great discussions going on.
Segwit blocksize increase
I want drivechains, that already makes that statement false.
Gotta wonder about the quality of your opinions om Bitcoin when your offhand arguments are so silly
drivechains add a hash and a counter to the block header. it lets people, if they want to, put their coins in an address controlled by the miners. those bitcoin then can move around on a sidechain. it's like the liquid federation or the wbtc multisig but the miners are the custodians.
non-technical people and people that have delusions that bitcoin can scale by some, as yet undiscovered, magic crypto shared utxo thing (or dumber people that think bitcoin can scale just with lightning) are upset because they see a growing movement to activate drivechains and they don't get it
It is. People want drivechains (thats why youre sp threatened) and the whole argument presupposes they dont.
silly
Christian Decker is a good man but it would probably be better for everyone if he got blockstream to push apo harder.
Again, bad logic tony. Lots of people wanted segwit, lots didnt. That's not really an argument. If you read my original reply to you it asked you to read the bips and come up with a real argument
Still waiting for that
Fucking around with miner incentives doesn't appeal to me.
To all involved, please keep in mind that BITCOIN is not just for the few (personal wants), it belongs to the WORLD!
You are all impressive developers, builders, contributors, and I appreciate you. So, I have no doubt that TOGETHER we can make BITCOIN serve us ALL.
Ask not what Bitcoin can do for you, ask what Bitcoin can do for the
world❣️
Peace, Love & FREEDOM to you all 🕊️
I’m a non technical person, how does this compare to lightning for example?
My first impression is that this is so incredibly complex and autistic that bitcoin has zero hope of ever becoming mainstream.
We will learn. you will just need to use it one day not ;)
Mining is exactly designed to be a drudgery. The value miners derive from mining is supposed to be a lot less than the value of bitcoin being useful in the market.
See this video of Saifedean Ammous:
Hopefully you're not excited for this, because I sure am not while also wanting Drivechains.
Either way, it’s hopeless. Normal ppl can’t make sense of this stuff, not to mention normal bitcoin activity.
i think it complements it
I'll say with confidence that Bitcoin is both the currency for autists and those who care too much.
Don't see there being an in-between.
lightning is like you opening a bar tab with multiple ppl, and you let ppl use your tab to send money to other ppl’s tabs
drivechain is you giving miners your money and then they vote where it should go when you ask for it back
which is gay
Yes. Or you, or anyone else.
Plus governments can seize property within their jurisdictions. That danger you point out is always present regardless of miner compensation.
If there are many many miners with many thousands of ASICs spread all around the world that improves the situation, don't you think? Compare that to just one just mining all blocks in his apartment with a single ASIC and getting paid the totality of fees the network produces: $5 per block.
Cannot agree more. The auditable, secure and immutable bitcoin blockchain base layer is what has been missing in money for 3000 years. People who don't understand this want widgets and gadets added that will make it look like all the other fiat crap that DID exist for 3000 years and failed. People dont understand sound money. This is it, this is the one shot we have, don't mess with it ! Especially through ignorance.
Why is everyone not using Bitcoin(yet) ? Because Gresham's Law(bad money drives out good money under legal tender laws) is still in effect. While that law holds people will preferably use the fiat crap to spend because they have to so long as the legal tender laws are in place and the useless money is inflating away. Spend the junk before it has no value at all ! When CBDCs and other surveillance money gets forced onto us, people will wake up out of necessity. In the meantime they are using bitcoin as savings
Yes, of course. But I see more likely that in the far future block fees will be worth more than the current fees + subsidy (just like the 50 BTC subsidy of 2011 was far less valuable than today's one of 6.25), not that they'll be worth $5.
What's your view of the issuance schedule, then? Do you see it as too harsh?
Do you think custodial wallets are going away anytime soon? If not, wouldn’t you rather a user have privacy?
I agree that self custody for everyone is the goal but there are steps along the way as more people learn. Self custody for everyone in the world is currently not technically feasible, so let’s give people trade offs that add benefit to the users. Ecash provides privacy as a trade off for an already establish model of custody.
Schrodinger's Drivechain
Everything is a shitcoin and they offer no value or utility whatsoever, but we want them all on Bitcoin
Agreed. Over engineering the base layer is a surefire way to screw up Bitcoin.
View quoted note →Thank you. This was helpful.
Need to think about it more, but my initial impression is that the proposal is complicated and inelegant.
Seems to require a lot of trust in miners to do the right thing. Not clear that the proposal will work as intended and won’t have unintended consequences.
lol. ngl, kind of a good point
Agree
there is a good reason to believe bitcoin cannot "peg" the economy into reality if it isn't accessible enough, like gold couldn't. unfortunately the same drawbacks of gold's difficult portability are translated in a way to the limit on bitcoin's bandwidth - it's trade-offs all the way down
but - LN is adding a few orders of magnitude of extra bandwidth in a way that isn't changing base layer dynamics, and - covenants based ideas such as coin pools can expand bandwidth with additional orders of magnitude, again, without changing the game-theoretic dynamics of the base layer - and without changing the original nature of holding bitcoin through control of UTXOs, on-chain or off-chain
not all BIPs are the same, it's a subject that's worth digging, now probably more than ever
Jeremy Rubin
Payment Pools / Coin Pools - Jeremy Rubin
Welcome to day 13 of my Bitcoin Advent Calendar. You can see an index of all the posts here or subscribe at judica.org/join to get new posts in you...
Andreas destroyed that argument in two minutes.
I miss Andreas 🫶🏾
He should be here.
Yeah
I mean that's just nutty. I understand not activating anything that hasn't been clearly communicated, I understand using BIP-08 instead of BIP-09, but to seriously be completely against an upgrade that makes implementing channel factories significantly simpler is asinine. On what principal? With what purpose? To what end?
Well said
How’s is this different from Lightning? Segwit softfork enabled Lightning . Taproot softfork enabling taproot assets. We all run these nodes happily knowing that shitcoins will possibly be on there soon.
I got my node and my vote.
Drive chain attack vector
1. Bitcoin implements drive chains
2. Governments issue CBDCs. They are full Orwellian dystopia, ban cash.
3. Someone starts a stable coin on a drive chain that locks up CBDC and issues privacy focused stable coin with proof or reserves, all the best features.
4. Everyone prefers the privacy drive chain money over the CBDC, becomes main usecase for CBDC.
5. Drive chain grows 100 times larger than Bitcoin in terms of transaction fees for miners.
6. Government threatens to freeze locked up CBDC if Bitcoin miners don't sensor wallets that have been identified as belonging to some undesirable entity.
7. A series of hard forks occur when wallets are forked out. First minor uncontroversial issues but once a precedent is set government requests more frequent censorship for more minor issues. Forks that don't censor transactions find themselves with a minority of the hash rate. Uncensored Bitcoin suffers 51% attacks from government controled miners. Uncensored Bitcoin forks enter death spiral.
Oh well, it’s been fun 🤷♂️
Agree, however, the grinding between the USD bloc and the BRICS bloc is looking to be potentially very destructive
Couldn't this be somewhat pre-empted if the miner reward was lowered in order to induce price hyperbitcoinization ?
(I know this would involve a hard fork so... not gonna happen)
This is an attack on bitcoin. It's an attack on me. It's an attack on you. It's an attack on personal liberty, and everyone that owns, supports and uses Bitcoin.
To understand why it's an attack you have to clearly understand what Bitcoin IS!
Bitcoin is very low Bitcoin transaction fees. Bitcoin is #fullnodes that almost everyone can run for themselves. Bitcoin is the most secure financial network in the world.
Bitcoin is code development and maintenance that fully understands the aforementioned, and STRICTLY! adheres to it.
Another name for all of the above is the often used phrase that Bitcoin is (permissionless, immutable, open source, censorship resistant, trust minimized).
You can't be a developer, maintainer or supporter of Bitcoin unless you CLEARLY! understand what Bitcoin IS!, And ZEALOUSLY! protect it.
I think I understand now why Linus Torvalds is alleged to curse so much. I bet people have come at him with numerous bullshit attacks on his gift to humanity. All for their narrow self-interest. Aka Washington, Wall Street and Politics.
Bitcoin's code base must be cleaned up and locked down. All that garbage that's compromising Bitcoin must be stripped out and trashed. Like #inscriptions #ordinals #nfts #BRC20 #sidechains #drivechains #highfees etc.
I realize some people will disagree. But Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck, and I don't give a fuck. All of the above is what I'll ACT! on, and I suggest you do the same. "Come with me if you want to live (Terminator)..⚖️👮♂️😠🧡👑🗽
Oh fuck ya PDaddy you’re sounding like quite the accelerationist ;) Wear the hat in a coming pod??
A C C E L E R A T E
Are you sure about that? It’s just one option and a very messy option. Might be smarter/more secure if we KISS it. There will be better/less messy options in time. For now the base layer ain’t broke, so don’t fix it.
Blind merge mining. Miners don't know who. Gov would have to target the drive chain project, not the miners.
6. So how is the CBDC locked up ? In DC, BTC is locked, not a CBDC. Any manipulation of a CBDC and the project can just out through bitcoin. Risk is limited to the DC token and project consumers.
What does DC risk ? If you don't want to participate in DC. You don't have to.
Remember however, that you are also risking being so entrenched as to be unprepared for some future threat. You are taking the "Maginot" line, and fightning yhe last war, perpetually...in software...the fastest moving industry in human history.
Via con dios ✝️
Immutability of what ? Supply cap is one thing, that is bitcoin, but the code chamges all the time.
What immutability ? Are you claiming BTC v. 1 is the same as what we have now ?
Check out the drive chains site, or layer two labs for technical explanations. It's very interesting. It solve a problem you (we) don't even know we have yet.
Chess is not even the same game it once was.
Chess is not real life, with chance accidents and real world discoveries of new technologies.
Not only is your comparison unfit, it ignores a better one. Ecology.
Bitcoin exists in a competive jungle and you are arguing for overspecialization in the fastest moving environment in human history, software.
I doubt you will read this, but drive chain allows a slow main chain and second layer innovation. The orthodox tradition and youthful iconclasm, both.
It would have to be in a round about way. Government attacks DC token project because it runs on Bitcoin, puts pressure on it to switch to a captured token like ETH.
If the DC project fees accounted for the majority of Bitcoin mining revenue, miners would have to choose between a compliant Bitcoin fork in order to keep receiving revenue from the project or loosing revenue.
That's not how DC works though. A successful project on DC might be vulnerable but not bitcoin. To miners and bitcoin its just another hash block. Blind merged minning is already bitcoin core by the way. Your premise requires miner censorship, which is not and has not been successful now despite years of attempts.
If you would read Pauls years of work on DC, you would see that DC actually increases security. More profits for miners secures the network, more... that's the way satoshi designed it. In addition, more miners entering the space means a larger physical lobby against gov interference (Matt Kratter).
Drivechain is indeed a breeze for simplicity. If anyone has any doubts, they should go read BIP119 and then go read BIP300.
The code does change but the underlying rules that govern the monetary system (halving, supply, difficulty adjustment, etc) don’t change. That’s what immutability in Bitcoin means to me.
Miners don't earn a fee on each transaction on the DC project. Again, that's not for DC works. You don't understand how it works. Read more.
Each project (up to 256 at the moment) will deposit a certain amount to start. This amount is a sort of insurance. To get that BTC out takes 3 to 6 months and is technical. Most users will take their money out via real time transactions through exchanges (brokers) woth low time preference, willing to wait 3 to 6 months to take it out or not.
It is no more reasonable to suggest a single layer-2 DC project would become the weak miner link the state could use to attack BTC, then it is to suggest attacking the lightning network weakens BTC.
Again, DC is not for frequent/small and regular in/out transactions. It is an escrow, baseline against rugpulling, for everyone to see.
If a project got so popular it was seeing double the use of BTC itself for example, the back and forth between btc and the project would still be incredibly slow. It would just be like any other increase in users and total transactions, as we have seen from 2009 to now.
If the state can enforce miner censorship, why haven't they, and why hasn't it worked ? Because they just move to a better country and miners often pay taxes, so there's no reason too. Nothing about DC changes thid, and of you still think it does you are a trollnor do not understand DC.
I'm not trolling. I'm genuinely trying to investigate the incentive dynamics and possibly vulnerabilities of implementing drive chains.
Everything I have read on drive trains talks about BIP300 and BIP301 together.
"Under the drivechain model, Bitcoin miners also mine sidechain blocks. That is, the miner doesn’t need to run software for that specific sidechain, while accruing from the value being transacted on that parallel chain. This is because most fees paid on the sidechain go to the bitcoin miners."
https://medium.com/coinmonks/bitcoin-sidechains-bip300-cd30369ce3c4
Ok cool, i will treat you as a good faith actor.
I do not have all the answers, for instance, you point is well made. BiP 301 does enable sidechain block mining for fees.
Based on this i am assuming your argument to be: a sidechain project could become so successful that the majority of miners and network security become reliant on it and thus vulnerable.
My answer lies along three lines reasoning based on my understanding of DC.
1. Bip 301 is not essential to DC the way Bip 300 is. For example the drive chain implementation of ethereum here :
EthSide -- An Ethereum Drivechain | Drivechain: Peer-to-Peer Bitcoin Sidechains
Notice how it is an eth implementation but does not need or use Bip 301. Why i like DC is bip 300. Bip 301 is a "nice to have" for me as a user and not a miner. It came about for historical reasons alongside 300 during research on improving bitcoin as a whole.
2. A project that does not rely on POW but instead, POS would not have a need for Bip301 or BMM. In sich a case, the argument is that implementing DC allows bitcoiners to say to other projects "Anything you can do, i can do better" as the old song goes. Example the zcash DC sidechain.
3. If such a project became a threat, that is one that uses bip 301, a movement by users and miners, in their own self interest, retain the option of reverting to running their own node of the side chain project (this is the problem BMM is trying to solve/make easier) and accept payment in the the sidechain currency instead of what BMM allows, which is payment in BTC directly. In other words, return to Merged Mining as it is now:
GitHub
bips/bip-0301.mediawiki at master · bitcoin/bips
Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to bitcoin/bips development by creating an account on GitHub.
Thanks for your input, it is the best challenge to DC i have seen so far. Most arguments i've seen against it rely on things paul and others have already dealt with somewhere accross like 6 different websites and 10 years of emails. (Making it harder to find) Or are just non-technical answers, trolling and ego (zucco,todd). At the end of the day it's as simple as you like strawberry flavor and i like chocolate.
that's not how nature engineers.
nature throws out the trash and starts over.
if BTC is that fragile then it is trash.
