LEAPS google it think about tax advantaged account and what bitcoin proxies you can access in your country. Dont fuck arnd with futures etfs thats just giving money to bastards. Stay stacking sats

Spiderchain is a remora chain thet would increase miner centralization(if the node is expensive/hard to run) while siphoning off txn fees from mainchain. Unfortunately sidechain txn fees paid to L2 validators etc does not secure Bitcoin from the cost to attack. Im not saying spiderchain etc are attacks on BTC but if they had some incredible fantastic magical features and took away traffic from L1 it would be bad. Drivechain blind merge mining is a potential solution to this. Regular merge mining is good too but BMM allows for new mining pools to spin up and compete far easier than if they had to tool for an expensive (potentially permissioned) L2 validator thing

Im talking about txn fees being paid exclusively to L2 validators rather than L1 miners. Liquid doesnt pay miners, blockstream and the federation or whatev make the txn fees. Botanix spiderchains is a new example of a remora chain that will have users but not pay txn fees to BTC L1 miners. Stacks does/did this too it has users. You can have other scaling "solutions" like WBTC that simultaneously drive demand for BTC but gives txn fees to a competitor network, if WBTC txns were RSK txns there would be (napkin math, rsk has 3500 btc payin 1 btc per month in txn fees to L1, wbtc like 150k, zero fees to L1) another 50 BTC per month in txn fees, probably way more though. May seem small now but in 8 years the added txn fees will be essential for the security of the network.

A drivechain is a sidechain that has a special hashrate escrow L1 BTC address with no private keys to accomplish the "two way peg." Peg ins are fast, peg outs are slow. Drivechains have the option to be Blind Merge Mined, this is a method where the sidechain txn fees are paid in L1 btc to bitcoin miners. The goals of DC are to scale the network with permissionless L2s where users can onboard in a self custody manner while securing the future of txn fees. If the future L2 solutions do not pay txn fees it effectively competes with L1, weakening the security of the network as the mining incentives (txn fees) decrease

Yes Rootstock is pretty awesome, I use it for BTC backed loans.

Ah so that's why Afghanistan was abandoned

Its a softfork that you wouldn't even have to upgrade to. Right now there are at least 4 merge mined sidechains. Only the miners running the sidechain software can merge mine. BMM removes the need to run sidechain full node for L1 miners to collect sidechain txn fees. It literally alleviates miner centralization with things like proprietary sidechains using out of band checkpoints that could siphon off txn fees in the long term.

Agreed. We need something people can easily add atop their current node setup with little additional cost or technical experience. Every umbrel node-in-a-box is sitting with 1.2 tb extra harrdrive space and a modern CPU. Opennic looks interesting, like a more honest attempt than unstoppable or handshake stuff?

Are you building in this area? this is my fav topic. We need a 2 way peg and incentives (luckily there this thing called bitcoin lol) and we can have an open source permissionless option to compete with google, amazon, openai and the rest of clownworld

I'd like to see a Bitcoin native distributed storage and compute scaling layer. IPFS has a lot of recent advancements like IPNI, WNFS, IPVM, Bacalhau etc. We will get there eventually whether its with drivechain or ZK or some other innovative 2 way peg.

Without permissionless scaling the masses will adopt custodial solutions. Bring on drivechains and zk and everything we can to expand the network and allow use without intermediaries.

Lol an evil Bcasher in our midst trying to hijack the protocol! I saw a repost of this damning EVIDENCE

So right now the best "two way peg" for bitcoin scaling layers is multisig and federated solutions. Drivechain is two bips proposed in 2017 that allows for a new type of address called a hashrate escrow to hold the "drivechain" L1 bitcoin. Users send bitcoin to one of these addresses and recieve an equal amount on the drivechain. Drivechains would be blind merge mined so basically they piggy back on btc PoW and pay miners the sidechain txn fees to anchor the sidechain block header into BTC mainchain. To get funds out of the drivechain it takes 3-6 months of a slow very public process allowing for any public intervention should a majority of hashrate be compromised and trying to steal the DC funds.

Its a way to make trust minimized bitcoin sidehains for scaling and experimentation. There are already a handful of merge mined sidechains you can see in the coinbase op_return

Lightning needed segwit. I guess I am more worried about the regulatory capture for new users in the future, like after the US confiscated gold etc, sure rich families and hoarders had some they could access but the avg person saw their wealth inflated away... without self custody scaling solutions the bitcoiners of tomorrow would be stuck with bitcoin certificates in some bizzaro bitcoin backed fiat illusion. A 51% attack is temporary L1 capture it is far from impossible for a state to accomplish... also a state coercing mining pools to censor would be regulatory capture, very difficult, not impossible.

I don't think lightning scales and fedi is custodial, I don't see it working long term, maybe for very tiny communities and edge cases but the masses are almost surely to get stuck with wallstreet compliant BS without other layers. Hopefully we can figure some other way to create trustless 2wp if we can't upgrade further

Please explain to me how you plan to onboard 1 billion users. It will be layers or custodians. Without permissionless sidechains with no federation the only way to scale is with custodians who are BY NATURE regulated... I'm not saying L1 will every be captured, though it's technically possible it's physically and economically infeasible, the capture would occur on scaling layers, if people only have access to the protocol through a centralized custodian I see that as a failure of peer to peer electronic cash.

No one is arguing to innovate for the sake of innovating we want scalable L2s were users can hold their own keys its becoming obvious the direction this protocol is going is to regulatory capture. A user in 2050 will only have access through centralized custodians without either DC or a number of other improvement proposals that allow for sidechains.

The biggest innovation on bitcoin recently has been ordinals. The only other stuff i see is new custodial services solutions. The next biggest innovation to bitcoin will be ETFs and wallstreet custodial services. These open letters are really cringe just talk to the people you are trying to respond to

Drivechain

September 2017?

Lol I didnt expect a shitpost with the github link

Researching IPC heirarchical consensus for scaling bitcoin into the IPLD with UCAN payment channels for a bitcoin native decentralised compute over data network

Drivechains rule lol the bips have been around for 6 years. please continue telling people abt prediction markets itll make the network upgrade more popular. Lightning wouldnt work at all for many scaling purposes especially something where security and privacy are valued like a prediction market