pull down to refresh
282 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 17 Jul 2023
Ugh, we can only see the post we can't see replies to the post, therefore, we can't read the thread!
reply
418 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin_ 17 Jul 2023
https://nitter.at/craigwarmke/status/1680961751771148290
reply
47 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 17 Jul 2023
HOLY SHIT NITTER WORKS AGAIN
reply
368 sats \ 4 replies \ @037447d9ca 17 Jul 2023
You are so focused on popularity and killing this perceived enemy the altcoins.
Drivechains is a technical improvement, it would allow more programmability and use cases for Bitcoin and it should be enabled once and for all.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DeltaClimbs 17 Jul 2023
Name one non-scam use case that you cannot get from either Miniscript, RGB-CMYK, Tap Ass, or the covenants protocol that will eventually be adopted. 🧐
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @037447d9ca 18 Jul 2023
RGB is has different security assumptions than on-chain smart contracts. I'll name one: decentralized stablecoins. But whatever the reason, why hinder development and experimentation? Rootstock peg could be fully trustless.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DeltaClimbs 18 Jul 2023
Taproot Assets are as decentralized as you can get for non-synthetics afaict, and 10101 app is using DLCs for synthetic stablecoins so it seems to me those things are covered. I'm not a software guy though.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @craigwarmke OP 17 Jul 2023
- drivechain would help altcoins, especially ethereum.
- drivechain would help bitcoin much more.
Both can be true (bracketing concerns about MEV on Bitcoin).
Just to be clear, mine isn't an anti-DC post.
reply
46 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld 17 Jul 2023
Altcoins built arount the premise of slaying something. I don't like this argent at all.
reply
189 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 17 Jul 2023
Okay, so now that I'm able to actually read this thread, yeah I'm against drivechain. It doesn't actually help Bitcoin from what I can see. Sure, we'd have these VC's funding company CEOs to create company scrip or develop code for core that helps their company scrip thrive, but I'd be more worried about that making Bitcoin more vulnerable to attack especially attack by belligerent company interests. I think Drivechain would fundamentally strike at the heart of the social construct based soft fork activation we have with Bitcoin and miners and sidechain interests really would drive Bitcoin development into the future rather than the users.
I know some people who said they would actively URSF BIP-300, and if no new information or code changes that would change my view of it came up, I'd be inclined to join them.
reply
47 sats \ 1 reply \ @energycurrency 17 Jul 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin_ 17 Jul 2023
Solidity is not the only EVM language. And there are Solidity contracts that have never been hacked, so it's clearly possible to write secure contracts in Solidity. There are also already examples of Solidity contracts and others for EVM being formally verified, which can provide stronger assurances around the security of smart contracts. See e.g. https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/smart-contracts/formal-verification/
Clearly disproven by Rootstock, which has ~3400 BTC, thousands of MAU, and tens of millions of dollars in stablecoins and other assets being used there. Also, EVM is the most widely adopted VM on all blockchains, with dozens of different blockchains using the EVM. Predicting that this demand/adoption would not carry over into drivechains if BIP300+301 were activated is.. well.. not the conclusion I would draw from the available data. Clearly the EVM has a significant userbase of developers and end users, massive network effects are tooling, documentation, etc. The logical conclusion is that at least some of that will spill over into bitcoin (and as I pointed out, it's already happening with Rootstock).
reply