For many years I thought the next great Bitcoin Schism would be around privacy.
Now it's looking like it might be around enhancing permissionless innovation in general.
Login to reply
Replies (43)
Privacy is cool, but I think BTC is the ultimate keep the govt in check type thing. Creates competition for unruly sovereigns.
Could you give some examples of enhancing permissionless innovation schism?
One man's progress is another man's egress, yet Bitcoin is for everyone. Beware of ambitious fools, trojan horses and false promises.
Competing egos and projects.
Imagine pushing taproot down our throats but freaking out about one OP code addition.
Except it’s not permissionless. Changes to Bitcoin require permission from the developers, the miners and, ultimately, the users.
Drivechains are a novel concept, however they are a solution looking for a problem where there is no demand.
Coupled with the lack of trustless peg-out and opportunity for abuse, what you’re left with is a threat vector in which the risk outweighs the benefit.
What is Layer 2 Labs path to profitability to provide return on the $3m to its investors?
Personally, it’s a nack from me. I wouldn’t care if Satoshi himself wrote the BIP proposal.
Changing the protocol is not permissionless, I'm referring to enabling folks to experiment with 2WP sidechains.
Claiming there's no demand is dubious. We can objectively observe that there's a LOT of demand for folks to use BTC in DeFi. And as a result, folks have sent a TON of BTC to trusted third parties to "wrap" it.
It doesn't have to be that way.
No comment one way or the other on sidechains, but demand does not always mean we should.
Not sure if you're referring to Drivechains here, but is there a custom signet running that yet? Along with some actual working defi examples.
Channeling @josie here.
Yes there is. You can get the mainchain and sidechain nodes at drivechain.info
They've even tested activation
Yes, sad to see some privacy influencers on the wrong side of this one.
You don't get it bruh
What am I missing?
First, it's a real problem with plenty of demand. I want zkp privacy for my bitcoin. I want to stop losing people like Jeremy Rubin and Joseph Poon because forks are too hard (we could already have a ctv drivechain). And more things besides that. So to say there's no demand is wrong.
Second, the only way to have a trustless pegout would be for nodes to verify the sidechain rules. This would kill decentralization. Trusting the miners with the peg out is a simple solution that has good tradeoffs (svp wallet users (the majority of Bitcoin users) already trust the miners). So to say that the lack of a trustless pegout is a problem is also wrong.
>lack of trustless peg out
What do you mean by this, specifically. What part of bip300 requires a trusted peg out ?
Does liquid solve a problen for someone ?
If liquid solves a problem for even one person, then DC has found what itncan solve and does not need to go looking very far.
The part that requires miner consensus to authorise the withdrawals
That's not how bip300 works.
Miner votes are confs, not permissions.
I think its fairly obvious from Liquid’s transaction volume that it has failed from an adoption perspective.
That's your Opinion.
Bullbitcoin likes them, and they have an important and useful product for their users.
I happen to think miniature scale replicas are a silly hobby. I think second life is a waste of time. The consumers of those disagree.
Also, since some of your objections and understanding of the topic are falling through, i recommend you consider the FAQ and years of research on the topic, based on your name.
Drivechain is insurance against a black swan event that is negative for bitcoin.
What happens if they do not ack the withdrawal bundle or if they simply spend the coins?
Consider a scenario where there is $30b USD locked up in a drivechain.
Anyone could broadcast a Tx spending the coins to miner wallets, then RBF it to add an additional bounty, and all miners would need to do is allow the Tx to be mined in order to receive their share of the pot.
There are no black swans that drivechains provide a solution for 😂
Bitcoin doesn’t need to cater for for other peoples use case. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
You don’t need drivechains for privacy.
A layer 1 node doesn’t need to validate Lightning transactions.
The same can be achieved for other layer 2 networks offering privacy / throughput / data storage etc.
Nothing happens if they do nothing.
If instead the withdraw gets 26 declines, the withdraw is cancelled and can just start up again. Nothing is lost.
Who could broadcast it . You say could, but thay could implies much.
Why don't miners broadcast a tx from your wakket right now and do all that stuff yoy describe to it ?
Same reasons. withdraws are sidechain side initiated, notnminer initiated.
Almost all of them actually. Something like an alien civilization giving us each infitite power and matter creation, maybe not. The difficulty would probably just increase though.
Your lack of understanding about bip300 is not evidence against drivechains.
that's exactly what a soft fork is for
What is segwit and taproot if not a new use case ?
It's like saying u.s dollars cannot be used to buy miniatures via credit card because i don't think there is a sufficient market for them.
Also, the bip300 soft fork is not catering to anyone who does not want to participate in sidechains. It does nothing to you excecpt increase your security.
You need drivechains for zero knowledge privacy
Yes, that'drivechains. Layer one nodes don't need to validate the pegout
Huh? You’re contradicting yourself.
Lightning has trustless peg in / out without relying on miner cooperation.
I never said drivechains was trustless. Just that you can peg out without mainchain nodes validating.
Keep your dangerous experiments entirely segregated from the main chain. You shouldn't need changes to the main chain for this.
People's lives are not your playground. 👎👎👎
The Five Obstructions by Lars von Trier is an excellent example how limitations can push creativity and innovation.
And therein lies the problem. I’m not opposed to drivechains conceptually, but I believe it needs to be implemented trustlessly or it’s just an epic rug waiting to happen.
You could argue that the risks are known, so the amount of value locked in a drivechain reflects both the utility and the inherent risk of theft, and you might be right.
Personally though, I can’t support something I see as fundamentally flawed.
Yes that's right. The risk is the tradeoff made to allow drivechains to scale better than lightning.
You are wrong to think there is a flaw. Every second layer has tradeoffs. You sound like bsv people that say lightning is "fundementally flawed" because it requires wallets to be hot, or peers to be online to receive, or inbound liquidity.
The fact is all layer twos will have tradeoffs.
But they don’t allow Bitcoin to be stolen on the base layer, or further empower the miners.
Do we need a layer 2 for privacy, or do we need to improve privacy at the base layer? Certainly. But, based on my interactions with others, that is the only use case the majority of users support.
Without knowing all of the second and third order affects, I still believe the benefits don’t justify the risks.
Agree to disagree 🙏🏻
Seems the goal posts just keep shifting 🤔
Anyway, yes agree to disagree.
So you are against Liquid and blockstream then? They are not trustless and can also be rugpulled.
Drivechain only affects people who parricipate in it, like liquid.
I understand you're referring to drivechains. What are you referring to as "innovation", some examples?