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.
Login to reply
Replies (5)
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.
You don't get it bruh
>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.