Author: Anthony Towns 2022-02-26 06:00:40
Published on: 2022-02-26T06:00:40+00:00
A discussion on the rejection of Drivechains in Bitcoin is taking place on the bitcoin-dev mailing list. The initial objection to Drivechains was that they were not worth implementing as they are not a good solution for Bitcoin due to their distinct security model, which is arguably not very good. However, there is a possibility of developing constructs that can be used for both E and G. It is essential to understand the relative merits of these constructs before merging them. The discussion also covers the need for someone who opposes BIP-300 to speak up. Some posts from 2017 opposing driveshafts and side chains were shared, indicating a need to be conservative about adding new consensus features because of their maintenance cost. However, individuals should have the freedom to experiment and use such approaches as long as they do not pose a direct burden on everyone else. The argument against Drivechains was centered around their game theory, and the implicit threat of miner censorship. They could cause a block size increase and be safely ignored by miners and full node operators. A “from_coinbase” flag is required, along with covenants that minimize externality costs users impose on each other. The argument that drivechains are an existential threat to Bitcoin is not widely agreed upon, but it is agreed that users should encourage miners to steal funds deposited into drivechains to prevent adoption. The same technology that allows vaults also enables drivechains, as the goal in both cases is just constraining how withdrawals work. There is a possibility of developing constructs that can be used for both E and G, and it is essential to understand the relative merits of these constructs before merging them.
Updated on: 2023-05-22T17:25:05.758057+00:00