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.
Replies (2)
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.
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.
