For example, RSK/Rootstock/Liquid/Fuji.
Yes, Sidechains are BTC L256.7%
No, only LN is true L243.3%
30 votes \ poll ended
pull down to refresh
12 sats \ 4 replies \ @03cc1d 18 Feb 2023 freebie
Yes, of course they're level 2. They're not level 1, and they're not level 3.
Are they good? Yes. Pretty much everything that pushes up demand for blockspace is good (including ordinals), as this increases mining fees and improves the security of L1.
If you're upset about paying L1 tx fees, use L2.
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Eximpius 18 Feb 2023
Opinions are like assholes… Everybody has one. As this comment demonstrates.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @03cc1d 18 Feb 2023 freebie
Thanks for the demonstration.
The beauty of BTC is that opinions don't matter. As a public good, BTC would always face "tragedy of the commons", which is mostly mitigated by (small) blocksize.
Getting angry about Ordinals and SideChains is what some would call "p*ssing into the wind"
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 18 Feb 2023
For me, L2 is a broad term and anything that is not base chain could be considered L2. I do think that LN is in a class of its own in terms of trade offs since I as an individual can create a channel myself and choose the peers I interact with where as Rsk and Liquid you're introducing possible centralised choke points
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @mallardshead 18 Feb 2023
I consider them anachronistic things that fit the pre-covid version of bitcoin and crypto better. Once you operate on the LN and use its apps enough, you realize drivechains, spacechains, and sidechains have no future. I don't consider them an L2, because I believe all the instances of lightning working together via BOLT spec have been ratified into a single volume like all the books of the Bible were. We call this L2. Moreover, we've had BIPs on L1 specifically tailored for L2 functionality, like the three BIPs that make up Taproot.
reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheL0wner 18 Feb 2023
they are l2s by strict definition insofar as they require btc to function. but they are at best alternative specialized options, and at worst mild distractions for the moment imho.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @monk_cactus 18 Feb 2023
If a side chain has a consensus mechanism and blocks, it's not a layer 2, it's just another blockchain sitting along side bitcoin.
You don't scale a blockchain by adding other blockchains on top of it. Why?
- Because you're just inflating the block size limit by creating more block space and
- Blockchains don't scale, by design. So you're not actually solving the problem
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0260378aef 19 Feb 2023
Lol, you really needed a third option here :)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Kaffi 18 Feb 2023
I think layer 2 shouldn't be as centralized as most sidechains are, LN is more centralized than L1 but its truly just a protocol.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @faithandcredit 18 Feb 2023
I'm not sure
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinosphere 18 Feb 2023
Of course they are; they are monetary functionality that requires level 1 to exist. Not just general functionality, but even monetary functionality. It's so obvious.
I remember before lightning it was common to refer to exchange-custodied coins (which are really just proprietary SQL ledgers) as layer 2 as well. Lightning is a far superior alternative to them but they are a form of our money that relies on layer 1 as well.
reply