pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @llamabyte OP 2 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: For a few hours i was a millionaire. My story : meta
Again, this has nothing to do with DC. How can you write so much about something you don't know about and have not even looked up the basics about. I guess you enjoy wasting time. bye troll
When drivechains first marketing point is not a hostile attack on the credibility of bitcoin I'll start paying attention.
But unlike SegWit, it is possible for a Drivechain txn to follow all the rules, yet still result in “theft”. Namely: it could follow all of the mainchain rules, and all Drivechain rules, but it might break one of the sidechain’s rules (of which the mainchain is ignorant, by design). Thus, mis-withdrawals are possible – they just take 3-6 months to go through (as do valid-withdrawals).
Oh, mis-withdrawals. Extra sidechain rules. It's DAO in another guise right?
Like I said: Social Engineering Attacks.
And how long before new tokens? And who decides the emission rate? Doesn't seem like drivechain takes the notion of authenticity of the chain of custody very seriously, putting quotes around the word for misappropriation of property.
Nobody is going to take this crap seriously, it has nearly zero chance of doing any better than any shitcoin, and nearly zero chance of not being used to launch yet another ponzi scheme, with deliberately complex sidechain rules that some people already know how to exploit.
reply
Yay. You made it though a whole paragraph. Way to cherry pick. Enjoy them . I hope they give you the shits.
Litterally answers that in the next paragraph.
How are you able to go through life half-understanding and half reading things.
In the case of a DC rule that breaks a sidechain rule, this still does not break bitcoin. For instance, if some bug or unintentional side affect leads to a withdrawl, that withdrawl is made back into bitcoin. We know who benefits from it and have time to prepare for 3-6 months. This is the role of bip 300, hash escrow.
If you never want anything to do with DC or a sidechain , you don't have to. You can keep using bitcoin as you have, but in an even more secure network as the increases in miner incentives benefits the whole network
See where he says mainchain is ignorant of the sidechain rules by design ? That means no one gets to change bitcoin emmission. The emission of the token project on the sidechain is determined by the project's devs. If sovereing investors want to accept a different emission rate on the side chain or a risk that an withdrawl might happen by accident but the trade-offs are worth the risk, that's up to them. Like anyone who chooses vanilla over strawberry icecream.
What drivechain allows for, that other projects like eth do not, is market accountability and transparence. ETH and Vitalik can and will (and have) just fork their bugs away, and keep the project going if a large enough theft happens . The trustless , CEO'less environment of bitcoin means only valuable projects will survive scrutiny. From first principals, ETH violates economic sound money. From those same first principals, ETH on Drivechain is improved by them.
Nobody is going to take this crap seriously, it has nearly zero chance of doing any better than any shitcoin....
Your low attention span and ability to read entire articles is disturbing. In my article are several well versed bitcoin devs who are taking it seriously.
congrats on one month and four days or however many.
reply
You put your credibility back to zero every time you reference your own unfounded and deceptive attempt to attack my character.
Doesn't seem like you really care to have a debate about the problems of broadcast model state machine replication so much as to score some points in the imaginary scoreboard in your mind that you have to keep repeating yourself, and here I am the one with the early stage memory problem.
reply
We know who benefits from it and have time to prepare for 3-6 months.
In other words, if someone is stealing, we can se it and have 3-6 months to kill the project with the news, if the error is not corrected. Devs have a huge incentive not to kill their own project for a limited sum. He explains this elsewhere aswell. There is also a limit on how much can be withdrawn from the project at once, back into bitcoin. So a rug pull would be seen 3-6 months in advance and be uneconomical
reply
its an impossible debate because you never answer any quetions or reply to any specific points. You're like some sort of frustrating hyper autistic chat bot .
reply
You assume that anyone GAF about your project. You already know most bitcoin Maxis are hostile to side chains of any kind. The more technical ones are even more hostile because they already did many years BUILDING shitcoin stuff and got to see a lot of things up close that you never have, that reinforced and led me to becoming a Maxi.
You refuse the first question which is to explain what kind of governance it uses, and evade all the standard categories of federated and proof of work, and refuse to address the question about whether we need more than one broadcast based ledger.
If it was so simple and I'm so stupid then how come you don't put that up front because it's the only thing that matters since you insist on a BLOCKCHAIN.
reply
what kind of governance it uses
the same governance that lightning and bitcoin uses.
evade all the standard categories of federated and proof of work
No. It encourages the opposite of that, more federation, more proof of work (miner rewards, securing the network)
and refuse to address the question about whether we need more than one broadcast based ledger
"we" does not exist, only individuals with different needs. You may not need it but i may. Anyways it's irrelevant to DC because products on DC's settle on a single blockchain, THE blockchain, bitcoin. If a sidechain creates a ledger for it's project, and that project is useful to it's user , Not "we", then who are you to say they don't need it ?
For instance, A monero drive chain might have it's only ledge, a much more user friendly and private by default ledger. It obviously has a use case many find valuable and the Maxi trope that there is no use case for it and people are just ignorant of bitcoin is painfully arrogant. Bitcoin maximalism is mostly right , but extremes lead to blind spots.
I look forward to your reply that completely bypasses what i've written here and goal post shifts to some other thing.
Again, many hardcore bitcoiners support DC and other projects like Monero. Please stop making bitcoin a religion.
I'm not the one saying you are stupid, i never have, that's your own conscience rattleing around in your head.
reply
If enough of LN was on Tor hidden services only there would be zero use case for Monero. The traceability of Bitcoin transactions has not been the doomsday of the darkweb that the M-heads like to make out it is, only problem the dark web has had lately is tor hidden service DoS attacks.
As for the drive chains, the problem as I see it, is there is no real benefit apart from the gimmick for most business use cases.
It is cheaper for most purposes, to simply run a number of data centres, running an app and the data storage back end replicated using a Pub/Sub system of some sort, using a common, mostly availability guaranteeing algorithm like RAFT or PAXOS.
Blockchains are inherently high latency, low throughput systems, and do not match up with any legitimate business use case except for bulk money transaction clearinghouse. IE bitcoin. They either need more scalability, or more throughput, or less latency, and for most business use cases, blockchains are the opposite of goldilocks in every metric.
reply