Jeff Swann's avatar
Jeff Swann 2 years ago
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.
↑ Parent

Replies (4)

BTCapsule 🏴's avatar
BTCapsule 🏴 btcapsule@nostr.report 2 years ago
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.
1 replies ↓
Jeff Swann's avatar
Jeff Swann 2 years ago
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.
1 replies ↓
↑