10 sats \ 1 reply \ @bataroot 4 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: Drivechains: "a very firm no" bitcoin
What bothers me the most about DC is that it seems to be playing around too much with Bitcoin system equilibrium.
Very anecdotal, but as a (very small) miner, i am OK with just being a service provider to the bitcoin users and economic nodes. My machines have one job to do and a limited influence on what's happening with transactions (partially true when blocks are being built by mining pools ran by public companies, but that's a different story...)
I totally get it, it just seems pretty premature to want to try and massage the fee market with DC, It's the same narrative pushed with ordinals and I don't buy it. BTC held up reasonably well last bull market with LN and Liquid around granted a lot of BTC was paper shit sitting on FTX and other rehyphotication exchanges but still the settlement wasn't too bad for users and miners were going balls to the wall scaling operations.
Some over-invested and got rekt, but that's not our problem some more efficient miner eventually takes over those assets
In a world where on-chain fees are 100, 200, 1000 sats per vbyte then DCs make a lot of sense but right now I just don't see the point of pushing something where I don't see demand, it's like those China ghost cities, some of them eventually do get filled but the majority are sitting empty
Can the requests be written and live on signet for messing around and pull the trigger later, sure! I just think LN has a lot more juice to squeeze before DCs is really something that requires an activation
but that's one nodes opinion
reply