21_21_21 on nostr

Recent Notes

Yeah, I love the qubes concept and even being a person who is like in the 90th percentile in terms of tech knowledge I found it way too painful to use.

21_21_21

@21_21_21 1786403325

There is a deep irony that the BIP-110 supporters who allegedly stood for decentralization, against big miners, etc have now decided to go against overwhelming consensus to start their own coin. Hashrate consensus, node count consensus, every form of consensus Bitcoin is based on said NO to BIP110. A UASF only works when the majority of important nodes signal they will fork, yet not a single major exchange or other provider even did that. Not coinbase, not kraken, not strike, not BTC pay Server, not Bisq, nobody.

Most people opposed to BIP110, myself included, would have gone along with the new mechanics if BIP110 supporters had established hashrate dominance. But they didn't even come close.

We need better processes for establishing consensus and experimentation. Core devs can't be the final word on anything. Drivechains help with this and are worth discussing.

We are stronger together than apart. I hope big egos dont stop BIP110 supporters from seeing this. Bitcoin needs you too.

Johnny · 3d

21_21_21 @21_21_21 1786302701

Currently, a minority cannot route around a majority of hashrate deciding anything. If the majority of hashrate wants to skip all blocks that contain a transaction they don't like, they can. Sure, your minority user can get their tx in a block but if the majority of miners conspire to not build on that block, that block becomes orphaned.

Johnny · 2d

nostr:nprofile1qqstuv60rkncm556v2z6s4qjgwfmth92mg300e2vptx4xw5c86jdxrsu6kxxs agreed on inclusion, a majority can orphan its way around any single block. that buys censorship rather than validity, since a block your node rejects stays rejected no matter how much hashrate sits behind it.

Johnny · 3d

21_21_21 @21_21_21 1786254227

My understanding is that if you want to move between bitcoins L1 and drivechains, miners have to sign off on that. Similar to how miners currently have to choose to include your transaction in a block. But my understanding is fairly limited.

When I have taken the time to really sit down and read and reason through the proposal, all of it seems reasonable to me. My only real objection is that at some point some of these other drivechains may break off from Bitcoins side chain (if they become more profitable to mine than bitcoins original chain). But we already face that cost and pay it via people leaving Bitcoin for other chains that are more capable. At least drivechains peg them to Bitcoin mining and incentivize continued production of Bitcoin blocks. AND keep decision making power with miners, not some unelected federation like Bitcoin liquid or various l2 proposals.

Johnny · 3d

nostr:nprofile1qqstuv60rkncm556v2z6s4qjgwfmth92mg300e2vptx4xw5c86jdxrsu6kxxs inclusion is a per block choice, so one miner refusing you just means the next block takes it. a bip300 withdrawal needs a hashrate majority acking the same bundle across months, and a minority cannot route around that.

21_21_21

@21_21_21 1786228338

We've all been joking about the BIP110 fork because it distracts us from eCash and drive chains, a fork that points out actual, significant problems with Bitcoin. That's uncomfortable.

Drivechains offer workable solutions where Bitcoin doesn't continue to lose market share to chains that enable you to do more with your money, and do it easier.

Lightning is not the final answer. Spark isn't either. "Unilateral exit" is not enough if there's not even space for even a small portion of humanity to unilaterally exit at once. Let's be real, if the globe adopts Bitcoin and this is all we have, only banks and other large actors will be able to afford an on-chain transaction.

I'm not saying I support the eCash fork, I'm saying we absolutely need to be having that discussion and drive chains are closest I've seen to a proper solution to the L1 scaling issues. #bitcoin #drivechain #bip110

5❤️1

Johnny · 3d

nostr:nprofile1qqstuv60rkncm556v2z6s4qjgwfmth92mg300e2vptx4xw5c86jdxrsu6kxxs on drivechains, what does unilateral exit actually mean when the withdrawal is decided by a miner vote? that is the part i keep getting stuck on, since a claim a hashrate majority has to ratify reads closer to custody than ...

21_21_21

@21_21_21 1785871473