Damus
Lyn Alden · 137w
People have the option of federated sidechains or federated mints. Could even split funds into several different federations if we get to the point where there is that much demand. Or maybe one day co...
fiatjaf profile picture
After 14 years we don't have anything near hyperbitcoinization, which is the goal of every sane person, and fees are probably only still relatively cheap today because SegWit did a mandatory blocksize increase.

No non-custodial offchain mechanism will ever be able to bypass the lower limit of requiring trustless payments to be bigger than the fees required for an onchain transaction. If we expect fees to increase -- and we must if we want Bitcoin to continue to be safe -- we must also expect that less and less transactions will continue to be viable.

There are only two solutions: custodial stuff and Drivechain. If no argument can be made that Drivechain breaks Bitcoin then activating it is the reasonable course of action.
23❤️3🤙32💜1
Unhosted Marcellus · 137w
Fuck no. The burden of proof falls on the proposal.
Lyn Alden · 137w
I don't think changing the global base layer of money in 14 years is a reasonable expectation. To the extent that it's successful, it was always going to be a multi-decade process. As for the final statement on burden of proof, I disagree. The #1 variable that gives bitcoin its value is its resist...
_ · 137w
Or bigger blocks
tforbanan · 137w
No Bruh, you need that thing that the guy is working on. A trust generation ritual to counter the trustless system, otherwise it won't work
Azz · 137w
What if a drive chain becomes more valuable to the miners than the main chain? Could leverage then be applied on miners to censor transactions on the base Bitcoin layer? For example, if a drivechain is locking up CBDC money and issuing a privacy focused stable coin to allow people to bypass CBDC s...
BOL · 137w
Please separate price hyperbitcoinization from adoption hyperbitcoinization Thank you