> If you going to use claims like \"DC is an affinity scam\" please at the very least provide some evidence for this.
Fair, I'll just refere to it as "shitcoins that require attachment to bitcoin to functional or relevant to greater economic activity".
> Fedimint/Liquid/Rootstock - Requires a known or unknown federated members to trust with your bitcoin. Do you trust people not to collude with your money?
Trust trade offs are a necessary scaling solution (https://trustisascalingsolution.com/ not my writing). I will trade some trust for privacy or other things that these technologies offer. The tech you mention (idk about Rootstock) exist already and does not require a change to base layer bitcoin so there's not much I can do to stop anyone from using Fedimint or Liquid if I wanted to.
Are you proposing that DCs are trustless? There is no trust in humans or groups of humans for DCs to work? That is not my understanding so please clarify.
> BitVM - The founders of BitVM are also Drivechain Supporters (SuperTestnet and Robin Linus). BitVM at bets would allow for sidechains/L2s that are trust minimised. So not as trustless as miners merge ming sidechains/L2s to enable withdraws from sidechains/2s to bitcoin mainchain/L1.
Cool. Appealing to celebrity does nothing to convince me. If they're able to build on bitcoin as is, I cannot stop them, nor care too because it's futile. You mention trust again and I would refer you back to the previous questions I posed above about DCs trust model.
> The bitcoin community of users, devs and miners benefit from drivechain.
> Users - More features/applications such as end-2-end encrypted transactions on L2s, scalable self custodial payments sidechain, and trustless financial applications on L2s etc.
> end-2-end encrypted transactions on L2s
What does end-2-end mean in this context? Privacy? Secrecy? Encryption for communication is pretty robust on the internet, why do DCs suddenly make this more prolific and available? Where does other technology fail at this?
How do users ensure their specific sidechain survives and doesn't get excluded by miners in the long run? Where does that incentive live? Who picks what sidechains are mined? Why should they pick my sidechain?
> trustless financial applications on L2s
There would be zero trust for a sidechain enabling financial applications? Refer back to above questions on trust. We all have to trust someone at some point in bitcoin, why is the DCs trust point so much better than existing ones?
> Devs - There is now no excuse for devs to make shitcoins to experiment on an idea they have to bring to bitcoin. Bringing more talented devs/builders back to bitcoin space. Devs can experiment and innovate in a free market of ideas. Experimenting/trialing potential BIPs on sidechains before releasing to Bitcoin Core. More competing devs.
Agreed. Fork around and find out. No one is stopping you from tagging a release and offering it to all the node runners. Bitcoin's talent pool has been growing steadily without DCs. imho, DCs would only delay more devs from working on bitcoin as they'll all be sorting out how to shitcoin on bitcoin and find exit liquidity before the miners stop mining their chain.
If a dev does not want to work on bitcoin because it's boring or doesn't do something novel, I highly recommend they listen to the bitcoin.review podcast to hear about all the boring things not happening in bitcoin. No one can stop you from experimenting on bitcoin so suggesting bitcoin is not a free market of ideas is bullshit. Fork around and find out. Let the ideas flow. Put code to the ideas. A mercenary dev was already hired to write the code, why not pay an operations/SRE to ship it to all node bundles? See what the market wants. No one is stopping you.
> Miners - Miners earn the transaction fees from sidechains/L2s. So an increase in the security budget for the bitcoin network. Miners now have long term business models if a sidechains become widely adopted.
Startum v2 is critical to miner health. Until that is widely adopted, I'll not consider other alternatives. Especially not ones that change the base layer and the incentive structure.
There's a fantastic pinned tweet by @rot23maxi: "If you can't FUD your own bags, you aren't thinking clearly." so please FUD DCs for me. Where are the negative trade offs?
AVERAGE_GARY
npub160…zyjc9
2023-10-23 13:50:11
in reply to nevent1q…jm04
Author Public Key
npub160t5zfxalddaccdc7xx30sentwa5lrr3rq4rtm38x99ynf8t0vwsvzyjc9Published at
2023-10-23 13:50:11Event JSON
{
"id": "00000158ca7d4bd20915bcc2e2631efc3d50c09b2d66d8e3241204d2c6e65d9d",
"pubkey": "d3d74124ddfb5bdc61b8f18d17c3335bbb4f8c71182a35ee27314a49a4eb7b1d",
"created_at": 1698069011,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"client",
"gossip"
],
[
"p",
"9e590cb99205c70d85380b40ed32392a7423b8b003c8b3d8336d958e6dc746af"
],
[
"e",
"3c18a74a2cdc5521a70ddf0c27e8f6835aa768252638339d32dc51e356b8140e",
"wss://e.nos.lol/",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"02d7bb75a6cc88c32f2f7741b786828816a99f162cc91e70dd05cb2ec04a8360",
"wss://filter.nostr.wine/npub12gu8c6uee3p243gez6cgk76362admlqe72aq3kp2fppjsjwmm7eqj9fle6?broadcast=true",
"reply"
],
[
"nonce",
"6917529027641100645",
"20"
]
],
"content": "\u003e If you going to use claims like \\\"DC is an affinity scam\\\" please at the very least provide some evidence for this. \n\nFair, I'll just refere to it as \"shitcoins that require attachment to bitcoin to functional or relevant to greater economic activity\".\n\n\u003e Fedimint/Liquid/Rootstock - Requires a known or unknown federated members to trust with your bitcoin. Do you trust people not to collude with your money?\n\nTrust trade offs are a necessary scaling solution (https://trustisascalingsolution.com/ not my writing). I will trade some trust for privacy or other things that these technologies offer. The tech you mention (idk about Rootstock) exist already and does not require a change to base layer bitcoin so there's not much I can do to stop anyone from using Fedimint or Liquid if I wanted to. \n\nAre you proposing that DCs are trustless? There is no trust in humans or groups of humans for DCs to work? That is not my understanding so please clarify.\n\n\u003e BitVM - The founders of BitVM are also Drivechain Supporters (SuperTestnet and Robin Linus). BitVM at bets would allow for sidechains/L2s that are trust minimised. So not as trustless as miners merge ming sidechains/L2s to enable withdraws from sidechains/2s to bitcoin mainchain/L1. \n\nCool. Appealing to celebrity does nothing to convince me. If they're able to build on bitcoin as is, I cannot stop them, nor care too because it's futile. You mention trust again and I would refer you back to the previous questions I posed above about DCs trust model.\n\n\u003e The bitcoin community of users, devs and miners benefit from drivechain. \n\u003e Users - More features/applications such as end-2-end encrypted transactions on L2s, scalable self custodial payments sidechain, and trustless financial applications on L2s etc. \n\n\u003e end-2-end encrypted transactions on L2s\n\nWhat does end-2-end mean in this context? Privacy? Secrecy? Encryption for communication is pretty robust on the internet, why do DCs suddenly make this more prolific and available? Where does other technology fail at this?\n\nHow do users ensure their specific sidechain survives and doesn't get excluded by miners in the long run? Where does that incentive live? Who picks what sidechains are mined? Why should they pick my sidechain? \n\n\u003e trustless financial applications on L2s\n\nThere would be zero trust for a sidechain enabling financial applications? Refer back to above questions on trust. We all have to trust someone at some point in bitcoin, why is the DCs trust point so much better than existing ones? \n\n\u003e Devs - There is now no excuse for devs to make shitcoins to experiment on an idea they have to bring to bitcoin. Bringing more talented devs/builders back to bitcoin space. Devs can experiment and innovate in a free market of ideas. Experimenting/trialing potential BIPs on sidechains before releasing to Bitcoin Core. More competing devs. \n\nAgreed. Fork around and find out. No one is stopping you from tagging a release and offering it to all the node runners. Bitcoin's talent pool has been growing steadily without DCs. imho, DCs would only delay more devs from working on bitcoin as they'll all be sorting out how to shitcoin on bitcoin and find exit liquidity before the miners stop mining their chain. \n\nIf a dev does not want to work on bitcoin because it's boring or doesn't do something novel, I highly recommend they listen to the bitcoin.review podcast to hear about all the boring things not happening in bitcoin. No one can stop you from experimenting on bitcoin so suggesting bitcoin is not a free market of ideas is bullshit. Fork around and find out. Let the ideas flow. Put code to the ideas. A mercenary dev was already hired to write the code, why not pay an operations/SRE to ship it to all node bundles? See what the market wants. No one is stopping you.\n\n\u003e Miners - Miners earn the transaction fees from sidechains/L2s. So an increase in the security budget for the bitcoin network. Miners now have long term business models if a sidechains become widely adopted. \n\nStartum v2 is critical to miner health. Until that is widely adopted, I'll not consider other alternatives. Especially not ones that change the base layer and the incentive structure.\n\nThere's a fantastic pinned tweet by @rot23maxi: \"If you can't FUD your own bags, you aren't thinking clearly.\" so please FUD DCs for me. Where are the negative trade offs?\n\n",
"sig": "1b7f727eb67d0ff7547fa5a0b9b2e86f528c12d55b9fef6342613ea1629753de8d2301d1916c7897fd3009d596ab0fd03459b4dde817349d8256fc4a628f55b5"
}