Replies (118)
He's probably going through a lot. Imagine if nostr came out of nowhere and obsoleted everything you were working on for the past 3 years
View quoted note →I mean I would agree that drivechains are a horrible idea. Fucking with miner incentives is a really bad idea.
Ask yourself
Do you know what beef is?
It’s just FUD pushed by Peter Todd who even admits he hasn’t read the BIP.
Yes, it’s true that Drivechain theoretically boosts miner revenue i.e. incentives, but that’s a good thing for bitcoin network.
And it’s “opt-in”. Only those who willing to risk their funds and business on sidechain are bearing the risk.
Because of merged mining, hash power determining ownership, & open participation it seems there is zero opportunity cost or downside to large miners trying to steal the coins in any drivechain. And if all miners are mining a drivechain to keep it secure then it's just a crappy round about way to achieve bigger blocks.
Mainchain blocksize stays the same, but if competitive miner revenue comes to depend on mining a drivechain, that potentially changes the game in a big way, much like big blocks.
I don't give a flying fuck what bcashers want. I want to scale Bitcoin without gambling with major incentives. Something like the new spiderchain proposal or tokens on lightning sound much more promising. Lets make use of the many unused features that already exist before we start forking things again.
PoS is centralizing, self referencial & fundamentally insecure. ETH is already too centralized & totally fucked long term.
Bitcoin blockspace will continue to be full & in demand. Miners produce heat & can theoretically operate at a loss because people pay to heat things. As miners wind up applied to all the areas of life where they can be applied, I'm confident that securing the network will cease to be any concern among rational people - not that there is any reason for concern now anway. If large mining farms eventually become unprofitable it'll just mean that decentralization will improve.
The LSP market has zero barrier to entry when compared to any banking or financial institution today. A tech savvy 15yr old could be your LSP. None of the modern banking problems exist on lightning. Your position is ridiculous.
Peg in & peg out risk in a sidechain with private transactions & atomic swaps via lightning are not serious problems. Neither on Liquid nor something like spiderchains. Liquid is already far more secure than any shitcoin, & I suspect any decent fedimint or spiderchain or similar solution likely will be too.
If all miners are participating then drivechains screw with miner competition the same way big blocks would (plenty has been written on the problems with big blocks). If only a few miners are participating then the drivechains are completely insecure & subject to being wiped of all coins at any time.
Anyone claiming drivechains are needed when so few of the scaling solutions that we already have are even being used is just full of shit. My node will run software to reject anything to do with drivechains if necessary & I know I'm not the only person.
“Liquid is far more secure”
Liquid is a federated model made up of 15 unknown members around the world with no ability to verify. All takes is 8 members to collude to steal everyone’s funds. It could be very possible that it’s just the same person with 15 different addresses. Liquid was closed source only until recently. With Liquid you can’t have z-cash level privacy and Turing complete smart contracts.
Blockstream in 2014 released a Whitepaper on Sidechain scaling which had clear support from various bitcoin core contributors. They raised huge amount of money for their sidechain idea. They decided to just make Liqud instead which they control and the transaction fees go to Blockstream instead of miners.
Even Adam Back (satoshi) the CEO of Blockstream has stated publicly he supports bip300. He even said last year dc would have been more useful than taproot.
Also, wallet of satoshi makes up like 90% of lightning wallets. There is nothing stopping them today to steal everyone’s funds or a state actor ceasing the assets of wallet of satoshi.
Bitcoin was suppose to be peer2peer with no middle men and enable self sovereign money.
Instead we just creating new middle men to trust.
"Turing complete" is nonsense. Z-cash has a trusted supply in order to achieve privacy. Risking the most important characteristic is not a good tradeoff. Sounds like you need to stop huffing the shitcoin propaganda.
If you haven't noticed, changing Bitcoin is both risky & difficult. I would prefer that people build economically sustainable external solutions. 15 supernodes is functionally far more secure than most alts. Even some of the largest shitcoins are extremely centralized despite infinite noise about "defi" or whatever.
It takes time to build secure soverign tech. Shitcoins literally exist because building a real solution to complex problems is hard making Bitcoin slow & marketing a fake solution is easy so shitcoin creators capitalize on the people who can't tell the difference in the mean time.
Much like the short lived shitcoin bubbles, I don't think WoS will remain the most used LN tool (unless they eventually change their model). But for now it solves an ease of use problem, however insecurely it may do so, that will be solved more securely by the many LSP projects that have been in development for years. That said, I use & appreciate WoS because I don't need perfect security for my day to day funds, simple & easy to use is far more important.
He had Roger Ver blow a gasket, which was fun, if not admirable
Many such cases
In one post you say " Risking the most important characteristic is not a good tradeoff."
And in the previous post you claim Liquid, a KYC'd custodial solution is more desirable.
We have entered the phase of the argument where you know you are wrong and grasping at air.
Allow me to give you a face saving out: we learn and grow by being wrong, it's ok.
Drivechain allows for one minor change to push mosy future changes to Layer 2.
It is a more secure way to develope bitcoin functionality.
The most important characteristic is the guarantee of a limited supply.
Liquid doesn't risk supply, & there's no need to KYC anything.
Stfu
Actually without drivechain we risk the 21 million cap to increase via tail emission proposal by Peter Todd or bitcoin users being taxed by demurrage proposal by Gregory Maxwell.
If only there was a way to pay miners to guarantee there is no security budget problem. 🤷♂️
There isn't a security budget problem. The idiotic fear mongering is just coming from shitcoiners who want to screw with shit they don't understand.
I agree the most important characteristic of Bitcoin is the limited supply. This can only be secure with a small blocksize and Bitcoin’s nodes. However, I disagree that Liquid would be more decentralized than Monero or BCH on a drivechain. These two combined with the hash power of BTC and the nodes securing the 21 million would be cypherpunk AF.
There’s also a problem with Liquid being "confidential" rather than "private". Liquid is a good legal company, but it’s not anarchy money that will replace fiat. I want separation of money and state; not a rock to cash in for CBDC tokens.
View quoted note →That all sounds nice except that I don't think hash determines ownership is a secure way to do anything. It increases data costs for miners (much the same way big blocks would) & limited miner participation could make it possible to steal all coins in the sidechain. There's zero opportunity cost to attempting the attack. If there was any sort of network hash disruption or major change like the China ban it could open the door for someone to sweep the entire sidechain.
I think it's overall just a bad idea. IMO it would make more sense for someone to build software to help mining pool operators to become LN hubs. They need to payout to individual miners, enabling payouts over LN would potentially further decentralize mining participation by making it possible to send small amounts of sats to people running their heaters, it would reduce onchain txn load, it would incease LN liquidity & potentially create a new source of revenue for mining pool operators.
Now you are spiralling into madness and cope, the last retreat of the vanquished.
Muddied and defeated you swing your sword around as the truth encircles and closes in, like the final scene in a period movie.
Drivechains do not increase supply.
Everyone participating in the Liquid multisig is KYC'd.
You skipped over the custodial thing. Very important. If bitcoin is custodied it can be censored.
If mining pool operators became LN hubs right now, there would be two massive lightning hubs. Even now, lightning could be considerably decentralized, but the majority of people choose WoS or Alby because they make everything so much easier.
Drivechains could potentially increase node costs, but if the prices are not worth it, then they can do blind merge mining. In most cases, the prices would be worth it because the fees would cover the costs.
Michael Saylor has said if we want privacy, maybe we should buy Monero. He seems to want Bitcoin to be a legal, surveilled, expensive rock that we can cash in for CBDC tokens.
I would guess a majority of bitcoiners won’t use a sidechain unless they feel comfortable. Imagine a sidechain with the privacy of Monero or zcash, with a slightly increasing blocksize based on Moore’s law; just for spending money. This would let us all run a node while it becomes too successful to justify theft, and Layer 1 is ossified and protected from more stupid shit like Ordinals.
Lightning is very decentralized. There are zero gate keepers & tons of well connected nodes & hubs.
I don't think what Saylor wants really matters. We already have the foundations of pretty good privacy. Taproot helps. We have Vortex to open LN channels, permissionless peg-ins on Liquid (which itself has decent privacy), & atomic swaps out of Liquid to LN... And we will eventually get atomic swaps to & from fedimints &/or spiderchains too. The solutions are all there, they just aren't all implemented yet.
I don't think we need another "solution" that has a far more dangerous & unknown impact on the base layer when there are so many possibilities not yet realized & thoroughly explored.
I agree lightning is decentralised.
But most people using lightning are not using in a decentralised or self sovereign way.
It’s a bad idea to give miners power they don’t currently have.
Miners have a tendency to be centralized because of how they access capital. By giving them any additional power we reduce bitcoin’s decentralization. We need to make bitcoin more decentralized, not less.
It’s just economies of scale.
It happens as industries mature. Those who specialise become super efficient and make it difficult for average joe to compete.
That’s all fine. I don’t mind if they do. I just don’t want to give them any additional power.
60% of miners already merged mine rootstock federated sidechain.
Satoshi and Hal finney were merged mining namecoin in 2011.
Nobody seems to care about that but when drivechain does it oh naughty 👿.
It’s not the mining that’s a problem. It seems they’re just reselling the same hashes. The problem is that they shouldn’t have power to validate bitcoin transactions. That power is reserved to bitcoin nodes.
Don’t have a problem with federations either. Federations are fine, whether Liquid or RSK. The chain validators are outside the bitcoin ecosystem. No forks necessary. Something happens to that chain, it’s not a problem with bitcoin.
You might see it as a fuzzy, but I see one as inside bitcoin and the other as outside bitcoin.
Honestly, I don’t understand why DC proponents don’t just create their own federation. It just needs to be separate from bitcoin.
Do you know how difficult it is to create a federation, find willing volunteers, start a company and raise money to pay for security cryptography experts to constantly be online 24/7 to ensure nobody ever tries to steal funds?
DC proponents are pro mining, fanatics about economic game theory and proof of work maximalists who also believe in self sovereign peer-2-peer private e-cash instead of trusting on custodians.
This is not a normal industry. 51% attacks are possible. Drivechains allow miners to profit from attacking, whereas attacking #bitcoin is currently very costly.
Drivechains are an old idea and nothing has really changed. I think everyone is just getting impatient. It’s not the answer, sorry.
I guess you better tell bitcoin miners to stop mining Rootstock then.
Scaling by raising the block size or by allowing miners to steal (beyond double-spending) is futile.
Miners have to attack for 3-6 months to steal coins on a Drivechain sidechain, the odds of this are statically almost zero as it will be transparent on the blockchain.
Rootstock miners run a rootstock full-node. If all miners have to run sidechains full-nodes, costs skyrocket.
If miners use blind merge mining instead of running tons of sidechain full-nodes, then double-spending those chains becomes trivial because no one is fully validating them.
Open your eyes.
Drivechains make theft profitable!
3-6 months of time isn’t a suitable deterrent. The security standard of #bitcoin is greater than this.
So you admit sidechains will gather lots of users to help miners be profitable. This will be great for the longevity of the bitcoin network and increasing the overall security budget.
Some people should spend more time looking at the problems faced by ethereum (for example LSD) before they endorse drivechains. Learn from experience instead of blindly listening to assumptions thrown around on Bitcoin twitter.
Yeh it could be a disaster. Bitcoin could actually have popular apps that compete with shitcoin projects on ETH and competing privacy technology with Monero/Z-cash.
Yeh we cant have that.
Having more users is pointless if you sacrifice trust-minimization. Same applies to #nostr…
That awkward moment when you realise 90% of nostr users are using Wallet of Satoshi. (Custodial wallets can steal now not in 3-6 months).
Unfollowed for putting words in my mouth.
If you can’t have an honest discussion, you’ll never make any progress no matter what your proposed solution is. Grifting agitates the cyber hornets.
Lightning will evolve with LSPs, and Breez Lightning Rods will solve async Zaps in a trust-minimized way. I’m optimistic as ever thanks to ZeroSync too.
Yes indeed it could be a disaster if we don’t pay attention to what is implemented and the compatibility of incentives. Have you looked into EIP 7514?
Exchanges are custodial too. Scaling through exchanges and drivechains are the evil path. Lightning won’t be custodial forever, unlike exchanges and blind merge mining.
Non-custodial Lightning is being solved: Lightning will evolve with LSPs, and Breez Lightning Rods will solve async Zaps in a trust-minimized way.⚡️
You are free to fork
They’re not trusting in custodians? 🤔
LSPs can become easily centralised. And become the new middle men (banks) taking a cut in fees for payments.
I much rather greedy miners be the middle men as they need to maximise profits as well as think about their own longevity.
That’s not how a soft fork proposal works. Let’s see what happens over the next few months to years first.
There are zero gatekeepers now, but the difficulty to run a lightning channel and the liquidity that will be required at scale will lead to centralization.
Liquid’s privacy is a huge concern for me. Only the amounts and type of assets are hidden on Liquid. If you want to give Bitcoin to Canadian truckers, but you’re not supposed to transact with them, you would not want to use Liquid. Same with nostr DMs.
KYC Bitcoin goes in and KYC Bitcoin comes out. Central banks are not threatened at all.
The idea that a soft fork can be dangerous, and there are people who want to restrict access to protect us, gives me many red flags. If they are popular, then the market has chosen. Anyone is still free to use drivechains, Liquid, lightning, or even legacy. This is why Bitcoin is not a democracy.
Trust-minimized middle-men > Middle-men who can profit from stealing your funds
Don’t you see miners are already like middle-men? The genius of satoshi is they are trust-minimized.
Lightning essentially works via 6 degrees of separation. Every well connected hub makes it easier for individuals to manage a few channels, not harder.
People keep saying Liquid is KYC, but it looks to me like you can download the software for Liquid, run a node & peg-in bitcoin for LBTC completely anonymously. IIRC I spun up a node at one point but never did the on-chain swap. You can also exchange BTC for LBTC & (more recently) swap in & out via Lightning. I suspect the reason for on-chain peg-outs being only to verfied addresses is simply to mitigate the harm done by any possible withdrawal bug.
"Popularity wins" is the halmark of democracy. As a member of an intolerant minority I will work to prevent drivechain like changes the same way I did big blocks.
I thought you muted me.
ANyways, The trust mininzed middle men will also profit from fees for providing liquidity like how banks or credit cards for providing their service.
Profit from fees is good for miners and LSPs… profit from theft is bad. Understand?
Currently, there’s no way to profit from theft. Theft is currently very costly. 51% attacks aren’t profitable.
Currently, you’d have to pull-off a double-spend larger than the cost of your 51% attack to profit — but you’d temporarily tank the value of BTC doing a 51% attack, devaluing your ASICs.
With Drivechains, to profit you’d just 51% attack an unpopular sidechain and STEAL all the user funds… big difference!
Please review this diagram for more information:
View quoted note →
Liquid is not KYC. The KYC is from the initial purchase of bitcoin. You can buy non-KYC and use it with Liquid, but there are no real benefits over just having non-KYC Bitcoin.
With a drivechain, you could enter a coinjoin with KYC and peg into Bit-RingSignature. There is absolutely no public knowledge of what happens after that, and then you peg out on L1 directly from the miners for non-KYC Bitcoin.
Drivechains are not a popularity contest because nobody is forced into or out of anything. If I want to use a zcash sidechain and you do not, then both individuals win. If I vote with my node to keep you away from drivechains, would that not be a democratic mindset?
There seems to be a huge push by the corporations to reject drivechains, even at the cost of splitting the chain. Funny that this happens soon after BlackRock is involved, and they already claim they may not choose the "real Bitcoin" in a chain split.
The only way to use a node to reject a MASF is to hard fork off of the longest timechain.
So I have to ask myself. Is hard forking to the safe and legal chain with BlackRock better, or keeping the real Bitcoin and making it P2P cash with a little shitcoinery?
NO, there seems to be a huge propaganda push for adding drivechains. It's ridiculous. They've been around as a BS idea for a long time & they are being pushed like crazy all of the sudden lately.
Paul is completely dishonest in his presentation of the costs & benefits & he comes off skeezy as fuck both in talks & in person.
The default is always NO CHANGE. People defending the default are not the fucking propagandists or conspirators. Anyone presenting things otherwise is an enemy of Bitcoin.
There is no miner revenue emergency, there is no lack of viable scaling solutions, those are bullshit arguments from people spreading FUD.
“Miners making profits bad but LSPs making profits good”
Without miners the bitcoin network does not exist.
I’m pretty sure the talk of drivechains started with
@fiatjaf gaining a bit of popularity, and massive amounts of people saying no. Michael Saylor even shared a video to millions of people that has verifiably false information. I’m getting a "trust the experts" vibe from all of this.
I agree the default should be no change, but change is happening and has to happen. So which direction do we want to go? The current plan has given us a bigger blocksize and monkee jpegs on L1, while Ross Ulbricht would still get his coins confiscated.
All of these features should be on an L2 drivechain, and L1 never needs to be touched again.
Paying miners is equivalent of sucking cock. Interesting take 🤔🤨
Luke Dash Jr was paid by LayerTwo Labs to write a draft BIP300 Pull Request at the end of August to Bitcoin Core.
Thats when the discussions/debates started happening.
“Profit from fees is good for miners and LSPs… profit from theft is bad.”
That’s what I said^ are you stupid? Stop putting words in my mouth.
What are the odds of theft? Because it’s a risk but the odds are almost zero.
If I said it was “risk free” then you would say I was not being honest.
Yes, Lightning is not as decentralized as it should be but why not make Lightning better?
Are Lightning’s deficiencies a reason to bring those same deficiencies into bitcoin?
There are a lot of reasons to dislike the DC proposal, but I can’t get over how much of a hack it is. Overloading a transaction type is honestly something a junior dev would propose. It’s not how we should build the world’s money.
Mining on the scale of Bitcoin is different then on moneros cpu scale. Massive companies are having datacenters that are orders of magnitude more centralizing then it should be. Mining centralization was already a problem long ago.
The less miners a sidechain has, the easier it is to 51% attack. If all miners run a full-node for every sidechain, then all miners turn into centralized data centers.
If all miners use blind merge mining instead of running full-nodes for each sidechain, then no miners are validating the validity of the sidechain blocks which means they could be mining invalid blocks without even knowing it.
View quoted note →Like Bitcoin sucking up PoW from other crypto projects to stay secure, same story here I suppose.
We could have nostr as 2nd layer apps with bitcoin lightning integration...
Who is behind L2Labs & why?
Moores law doesnt apply to africa, just saying.
Block sizes aren't changing. We have an L2 that can do those things. Ordinals didn't use L2 because ordinals were a social attack to push for changes to the base layer.
SegWit increased the blocksize 4x and Taproot gave us monkee jpegs. If they were an attack, who merged Taproot and who’s paying the Bitcoin Core developers? Especially the handful of devs who have authority to merge code.
Bitcoin is a revolution to separate money from the state and destroy fiat. Does BlackRock and Michael Saylor really want to be a part of this? Or is it in their best interest to oppose this at all costs?
Paul Stzorc is the CEO, formed the company in late 2022 and raised money $3 million to push bip forward.
That’s all I know.
I do know $3 million is not a lot of money for a modern day tech startup. Eth projects and lightning projects raise tens to hundreds Million often. Stacks raise $150 million in 2022 marketing themselves as bitcoin financial layer lol.
Monkey jpgs on-chain were an unexpected side effect of base layer changes that were made to improve privacy & scaling. That's exactly why we should AVOID making MORE unnecessary changes & chasing other features until all the things we can do have been implemented & properly explored.
Liquid merely hides amounts, bruh. Why do you keerp pushing this inferior solution?Transaction graph is completely visible and it is a permissioned network along with many other problems.
Let me guess, all this vaporware is just 5 years around the corner. Just like when lightning was pitched. Now we come to find all the podcasters and influencers were overpromising what LN can do. And can't even do the one thing it supposedly had an advantage in: SCALE
Horrible sovereign UX (exactly why everyone is on custodial WoS), not used P2P, and incentives lead to large centralizing hubs that route everyone's payments
Great!
Even you, a hardcore bitcoiner immersed in this space, can't resist using WoS because LN is so bad means the average person will have no chance.
Custodial "Bitcoin" here we come!
In there minds, network effects only apply to Bitcoin 😂
It was not unexpected. It was planned from the get go with Segwit.
We fucked it up by not listening to Satoshi……
It’s already to late and now we’re suck with what looks to be the greedy miners coming up with ways to make the fee market worse.
Who funded lighting labs…..
Who made the push for Segwit…..
Why didn’t we just raise the block size like Satoshi intended?
The greedy miners
If I’m guessing right will try to make a smaller blocksize chain to raise the fees.
Miners are greedy.
Smaller blocksize actually makes it easier to run a node. So I am in favour of this tbh.
Comments like this are stupid & exhausting. You need to read The Blocksize War.
Don’t need to I was around for it and seen what has happened since.
This is a bad statement
An intelligent person on the losing side of a fight would want to investigate & find out why. But then again, the lack of desire to learn is often what makes people losers in the first place... 😐
Bitcoin isn’t broken. Be patient and play the long game. If you’re sad and angry, get outside and relax.
There was/is no fight.
I stated my opinion.
Like it or not.
I stand by it.
Like I said I was there for the block wars. Long before & I’m still here now stacking sats lmfao.
The only losers are the ones who think their opinion is the only one that matters.
We all like btc for our own reasons that’s why we’re here.
The blocksize war isn’t over by a long shot.
Why do you think we have l2,l3 etc cuz there’s an inherent issue with scaling on the base chain.
Did I say it was broken?
I’ve probably been in the game longer then you.
I’m actually very happy and touch grass all the time.
“We fucked it up by not listening to Satoshi……
It’s already to late and now we’re suck…”
Yes, you said we fucked it up and now it’s too late. We didn’t and it’s not.
Correct fucked up not broken. Fixes can be made.
Think 100y out.
Think 1000y out.
Are we making the right choices for now?
Are we making choices for 100y from now?
Are we making choices for 1000y from now?
Are we here to get rich or change the world for the better?
We are fucking up by not allowing for sidechain scaling.
We could oassufy layer 1.
Let’s devs experiments and build cool shit on layer 2z
Stopping all this arguing and politics. Bitcoin is about freedom. We should need to ask for permission on how we wish to use our bitcoin.
🫂 ❤️💕
We should *not need to ask permission to use our bitcoin.
You mean #echash?
Sit the fuck down you deviant
I fucking love everything about nostr bitcoin and all ya Mfers.
Big blocks prevent decentralization. They prevent average users from independently auditing the system. If we had gigabyte blocks it still wouldn't make the base layer competitve with modern fiat payment networks & it would hand over the network to Google & Visa & the other corp monsters.
If only Visa sized corps have the capacity to run a node, then they can change the rules however they like. They'd neuter it & censor it & make Bitcoin one more tool of enslavement.
This is not my opinion, it's just a fact. Bitcoin is what the economically active nodes say it is. If there are only a few nodes, then we have just recreated the Fed banks & their collusion would change everything in their own favor at user expense.
Big blocks cannot ever solve the scaling problem, but they could destroy Bitcoin. Scale has to be achieved via tech that adds an order of magnitude to the number of txns without compromising the ability for average users to audit the system. The only way to do this is with layers like Lightning, which is already a fantastic leap forward & it still has lots of room for growth & improvement.
You cannot change Bitcoin. But you can use it however you wish.
When someone says something is “too late” and “we’re stuck”, I interpret that as meaning it can’t be fixed. Thanks for clarifying.
This is so obvious it hurts. I can’t believe we’re still discussing big blocks and bitcoin can’t scale.
Not problems:
+ scaling
+ security budget
+ lack of shitcoinery features
Actual problem: self custody
+ normies are scared of losing keys
+ no private inheritance
I cant but miners can soft fork
Not if the users that pay them reject their blocks
"Class of 2020 here to fix bitcoin" embarrassing takes starter pack
Studied from the greats like Adam Back, Gregory maxwell, Hal finney and satoshi who were all advocates for sidechain scaling.
The users would have no reason to reject them, soft fork is within the current rules.
People who don’t mine need to stop assuming they know what “miners” will or won’t do.
It changes the incentives of the network. And Paul being the piece of shit that he is knows there isn't network support so he is trying to go around users & appeal to miners directly. He is also screwing with precedents for updating the network which puts miners & users at odds & sews division. This whole thing is an attack purpetrated by a skeezy mf.
Nothing wrong with sidechains. As you continue your studies, you’ll learn how Adam built a sidechain using a separate federation.
Go build your sidechain. Just don’t propose to hack bitcoin or give miners powers they don’t currently have.
Liquid is not a real sidechain because it’s federated. Even Adam Back and Sergio Lerner (inventor of the Rootstock/RSK sidechain) will admit this.
Real sidechains work peer-2-peer.
No gatekeeper. No middle men. Are merged mined with the parent chain. Fees go to those who provide the proof of work for executing the sidechain transactions not unknown federation members who can collude to steal your funds.
It seems clear to me that both drivechains and liquid use a federation. The mechanics are different but in both cases there is a group that has the power to validate transactions and who can collude and steal funds. There is no free lunch.
When you set up your sidechain you can ask the big mining companies to be in your private federation. If you trust them as drivechain validators, you should trust them as your sidechain validators. No need to hack bitcoin and change the incentives of the core protocol.
My point is, my node wouldn't reject the blocks. So what you're talking about is users hard forking out Paul's changes?
Miners can steal from lightning a channel as well. But nobody cares about that.
Only because d”rivechains are shitcoins 👿 ”
Yeh it’s funny. Which token will the hard forkers use?
Bitcoin with Drivechain will be using BTC.
Are bch and bsv mergers mined? If not why?
I don’t think so.
Namecoin was the first merged mined altcoin.
Then Rootstock followed.
I am pretty sure litecoin also allows for merge mining with dogecoin.
I will look into Sergio Lerners old blogpost. He’s dives deep into history of merge mining blockchains.
Ugh merged mining happened so long ago now lol feels like forever.
Paul’s demeanor was a concern for me too, especially talking about a MASF and secret softforks.
I’ve listened to hours of Paul talking, and determined he is a very frustrated nerd. He has even compared Bitcoin code to Dragon Ball Z 😂
Paul never had any intention to do a "secret softfork". He told everyone this is possible, and nobody knew before he said it. The dubious thing would be to do it in secret.
I’ve come to realized a MASF is a sort of check on powers. Right now, if thousands of people want drivechains, we’re stuck with the Core developers to decide what philosophy Bitcoin should follow. Did you know Taproot was implemented with something called a "Speedy Trial"? Nobody complained about that, because the "experts" said it would be fine.
Softforks cannot kill Bitcoin. This is not something we should be concerned with. If Bitcoin is that fragile, then in the future we could be one softfork away from destroying the economy. Softforks are backwards compatible and give you the freedom to opt-out, which is the individual liberty Bitcoin provides.
There was a ton of debate over speedy trial & a bunch of people unhappy about it.
