pull down to refresh
356 sats \ 5 replies \ @jeff OP 22 Jan 2023 \ parent \ on: Running Ethside: An Ethereum Fork that runs on Bitcoin bitcoin
Thanks, but I'd rather verify.
How will you know?
The presumption should fall on doubt, verification leads to proof.
In any case, if it somehow does manage to take off, it means more sats for miners, and potentially transaction congestion for bitcoiners. Not really much we can do about it but on the other hand the on chain tx fee cost might destroy the business model.
Congestion will cause a rise in fees that may swallow up enough of the "profits" that the shysters look for easier prey.
I remember the great congestion of 2017-2018. It's bullish all the way for miners. It will give LN node runners a headache for a while until countermeasures are developed.
I say let em make their shitcoin side chains. This can't really hurt bitcoin long term, only further increase the number of people using it. Once they are looking on in envy at their bitcoiner mates who just DCA'd and relaxed who are sitting far out front in terms of yield the penny will drop.
reply
if it somehow does manage to take off
Drivechains can't take off. They require a fork to fully implement. (See BIP 300 and 301). Right now, you need permission to innovate on top of Bitcoin. This is either a feature or a bug. Only the future knows for sure which it is with certainty.
I personally think it's a feature.
But, if we could unlock a mechanism to innovate in a permission less way, with opt-in only forms of risk, than the user just has more choices.
I personally would likely never use a drive chain that didn't keep sats as their unit of account.
congestion
Bitcoin needs full blocks long-term. Any business model that assumes cheap base layer fees AND Bitcoin's survival is playing a game of chicken with time.
Base chain fees need to become material and predictable.
reply
Bitcoin needs full blocks long-term. Any business model that assumes cheap base layer fees AND Bitcoin's survival is playing a game of chicken with time.Base chain fees need to become material and predictable.
Yes, chain space is a limited resource and at the same time optemising it to near capacity and reducing the fluctuation of demand kinda implies that eventually a very large amount of traffic on it is fully automated and can adapt relatively quickly to the change in demand, sheltered at least one layer from the base layer.
I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing a likely pivot from BTC on chain towards sats on LN.
I don't see any problem with people running casinos based on Bitcoin per se, just that it would be better if it ran on top of LN instead. I see no sane reason why there needs to be anything other than LN making up the bulk of transactions on chain. This would achieve the optimisation of base layer utilisation because the main competition would be between LN node runners, who generally are trying to avoid on chain fees. This equilibrium will be very strong once it starts.
Protocols based on LN are far far more interesting than more stupid sidechains. People just don't have enough imagination to even conceive of it.
Why would you chain your protocol to max 4mb of BTC transactions as its limitation when you can build off LN and you have no scaling dilemma to deal with anymore.
LN is the future. Bitcoin is the foundation, LN is the walls, and the protocols that build on LN are the roof.
reply
Way to cleverly miss the point.
reply
I don't think I missed any of your points. But you also didn't answer my question.
Did you know that a drivechain does not require a new unit of account? They could function using Bitcoin as a unit of account. One of the properties of money.
It's just a coincidence that some drivechains could choose to use their own shitcoin.
I predict the only drivechains that would last more than 2 cycles, would be the ones to use Bitcoin as their unit of account.
Edit: Here, friend, have a smile from a fun youtube video about coincidences.
reply