they literally believe that the price of bitcoin will just keep doubling forever, or people (banks obviously) will pay huge fees to open and maintain lightning channels. that's their plan, in both the core and knots camps. they are both the same. and they get extremely angry at anyone who doesn't want to do this plan. they never want to talk about the security budget problem. it unravels the whole thing.

"who is going to pay miners? " I've literally heard that question every single market low. 1 out of every 4 years... And the other three years are all record profits for miners, even when mempools are empty. Also, with AI they have fallbacks for their data centers during unprofitable months too, now. About drivechains, I really don't know why people hold them up to compare to lightning at all. This is a category error IMHO. Lightning is optimized for fast, cheap, high-volume payments while drivechains are for feature experimentation & new asset types. It's honestly closer to ethereum. Then there are many downsides to drivechains, even if you care about exploring new features more than you do hard money. Where to start? I can think of 4 no-gos right off the top of my head: 1. They have a serious miner custody risk. Probably the biggest technical objection is that withdrawals are gated by a simple hashrate majority (the spec uses a roughly 50%-of-blocks-over-~13,150-blocks threshold). This hands miners, rather than users or cryptography, effective custody over sidechained funds, creating a bribery/collusion attack surface. (A coalition with enough hashpower could approve a fraudulent withdrawal bundle and steal sidechain BTC!) Developer "Calle" has argued BIP300 drivechains grant miners excessive authority and could enable a hashpower majority to misappropriate funds. 2. Slow, capital-inefficient withdrawals. The ~3-month withdrawal delay is a deliberate security tradeoff (giving the network time to detect and react to fraudulent bundles), but it's much slower and clunkier than Lightning's near-instant settlement, making Drivechains far less suited to everyday payments. This makes them fine for developers playing with small amounts of coins for development only, but horrible for use as money. 3. The "shitcoinification" of Bitcoin. Most maximalists worry that opening this door invites speculative, low-quality, or scammy projects riding on Bitcoin's brand, which could reflect poorly on Bitcoin even if technically isolated. 4. No live mainnet deployment & stalled consensus. BIP 300 has been a "Draft" status proposal since 2017 and has never achieved the miner/community consensus needed for activation; it remains contentious within Bitcoin dev circles, with prominent developers opposed. So as far as I'm concerned, drivechains are DOA. That's a shame, because I'd like to see many 2nd layers bloom on top of bitcoin until the public chooses the best one and we all run with that.

Well yea isnt' it obvious?... it's working right now even when the mempool is empty because there is still a block subsidy 1. Using drivechains is optional though. People who don't trust it can completely ignore it. They never have to expose any of their funds to it and can continue using on-chain, lightning, ark, ecash, etc. Bit of irony considering the last three have a lot more trust assumptions than drivechains, but people are still okay with them. 2. You won't literally have to wait 3 months to get your coins if you don't want to. You can swap with other users on-chain or use services like Boltz that there will surely be a market for like every other coin. I think there is even a drivechain for decentralized exchanges already. 3. Honestly, I don't really have a strong opinion on this. It's kind of already shitcoinified isn't that the whole contention with BIP110 vs Core right now? At least with drivechains the incentives push people to do that off the L1. Most people already associate Bitcoin with crypto in general and use them interchangeably. 4. True I don't think drivechains will likely happen either.