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 →
Login to reply
Replies (1)
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.