Friends of Drivechain

“The brain drain is real though. I know dozens of bright researchers and engineers who left the bitcoin community because it takes more than a decade of pointless drama to activate even the most simple updates like covenants. We should activate BIP300 and then ossify the baselayer”

“On the weekend I watched this very interesting and insightful @BTCTKVR episode with @Truthcoin and @TheVladCostea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdyoOO_i7lk (2.5 hours) I find it sad that the bip300 discussion became so polarized as Paul has some strong arguments and meritfull observations. That being said: Recommending a pocast episode and encouraging dialog is no endorsement for or against bip300 as I do not really understand the implications of the proposal as my technical understanding of #Bitcoin  is way to small to have a properly informed opinion.”

“Paul is maybe one of the smartest people in Bitcoin... if there's anyone can help Bitcoin scale, I do believe that some of his solutions may be a path forward...I'm keeping a very close eye on Bip300 and 301”

“I fully support Drivechain because I want Hivemind since about 2018 when I first heard about them. In 2023 I want to add the following: neither hard-fork (obviously) nor a series of half-assed soft-forks will do. Soft-forks are not free, they add complexity to software code in nothing else. Throw 2-3 more soft-forks of Segwit scale and no one could be bothered figuring out what is going on there. We need one more soft-fork to end all soft-forks which is Drivechain. Another option is change nothing at all but it is a fragile solution which leaves BTC vulnerable to unknown future challenges and does not seem like an attractive investment offer to me.”

“Drivechain is one of the boldest proposals out there. It's not simple. It's not perfect. But it gives us a real shot at scaling Bitcoin and evolving it without fragmenting the base layer or requiring constant forks.”

“I think we can probably do better than LN, and drivechain is one avenue toward better things.”

“With BIP300 #LightningNetwork can have the "ideal" chain beneath it, making channel creation extremely cheap and viable enough for world adoption.”

“We need either Drivechain or something like it.”

“I support Drivechain (BIP 300 and 301)”

“Merge mining is possible today. Custodial sidechains are possible today. IF there's a harmful side effect of drivechains, it's already here.”

“I support Drivechain (BIP 300 and 301).”

“BIP 300 would improve Bitcoin builder culture infinitely. It would end 90% of the politics, new BIPS could be tried as a drivechain without changing base layer. Developers and new ideas would 1000x”

“Merged mining is a pretty big deal, yes. It's also why I support the idea of Drivechains.”

“We desperately need to take a long and hard look in the mirror, and start doing things differently. I think starting a more serious and thorough discussion about BIP300 (Drivechain) is the right place to start.”

“...I think anybody in the developer community will tell you, even if they don't want to do Drivechains, that they respect Paul Sztorc, because Paul Sztorc is trying to further Bitcoin as a technology.”

“BIP 300 🚀⚡️👍”

“The only thing missing from Bitcoin is that ability to adopt any feature or technology without changing main chain. BIP 300 fixes this.”

“I feel like sidechains are an inevitable part of the ecosystem for multiple reasons, & I simply see BIP300 as a hashrate based sidechain rather than a federated multisig. I 100% agree on the alts issue, but that's not why i am interested in it.”

“I'm generally in favor of finally fulfilling the promise of 2-way pegged sidechains. I've yet to see a convincing concern of how it could be dangerous to the main chain. Some folks have said it could be dangerous if a sidechain became more valuable than the base chain, but seems to me that would be a signal that perhaps the base chain should implement that sidechain's features.”

“I support activating BIP300 as soon as the implementation is ready (dev'd, reviewed, QAed, merged) and letting users decide when mining is "decentralized enough" for drivechains to be secure. Maybe it already is! Maybe it never will be! Only one way to know for sure: try it out.”

“I support Drivechain (BIP 300 and 301)”

“[...] long-term we need either a better fee market, something like drivechains, or else… mining at a loss by large stakeholders.”

“Down the line when Bip 300 is activated, we can have more trustless sidechains.”

“I agree with all of this”

“...Drivechains are at least 4 years old. The LN whitepaper was 2016. If there had been aggressive innovation (from the user functionality perspective) on this stuff, I'd agree it would have taken the wind out of many altcoin sails, but there wasn't so it didn't.”

“The most bullish thing about Bitcoin's BIP 300 is seeing all the left curve Laser Eyes come out against it”

“As a self-professed Bitcoin maximalist, I support #BIP300. Enabling permissionless innovation on top of a stable and conservative Bitcoin base layer (rather than pushing them into shitcoinosphere) is a very important goalz. That's how modern versatile Internet came into being.”

“I'm a fan.”

“I don't really see an argument against drivechain here. If 51% of miners are colluding hard enough and "willing to steal", Bitcoin is in deep trouble, drivechains or not.”

“As for Drivechains, DCs simply multiply usefulness of Bitcoin WITHOUT any risk to those who don't want to use them.”

“Any sidechain replacing an altcoin increases BTC's security by 1. eliminating competitors with potential attack interests, 2. increasing the value of the token in which btc miners are paid. On top, 3. Drivechain brings more fees to btc miners, not changing mainchain fees or size.”

“some think giving a blanket permission for people to do anything on top of bitcoin is a bad idea. i see that as the main value proposition of dc, to get rid of fork campaigns and shouting matches on twitter. which means it all boils down where people will put their money?”

“The idea to migrate Rootstock to a drivechain when it is softforked into Bitcoin is right in the original white paper. Anyone that takes part in Rootstock knows that the destiny is to become fully decentralized.”

“Absolutely we count on the Bitcoin Core Devs to implement the Drivechain softfork as soon as possible to make Sidechains 2.0 a reality!”

“Yes" [in response to "would you signal to activate BIP300?"]”

“...my opinion on Drivechains. Here it is. In general I think it's a good idea...”

“Yes people do and I support bip300 right now.”

“Surely you wouldn't prefer off-chain custodial accounts (eg. Coinbase) over sidechain balances (eg. Drivechain)?”

“I support BIP 300 and BIP 301!”

“I support Drivechains! (BIP 300/301)”

“Sometimes I think the name "drivechains" drives people away. If you do the research, it makes so much sense to do drivechains. the main risk is for for the bitcoins on the drivechains that could be hijacked by miners. Big deal.”

“Drivechains - Crypto without shitcoins. Make Crypto Great Again”

“The sooner BIP-300/1 happens the better.”

“...make BTC interoperability easier (BIP300 or similar)...”

“*If* BIP300/301 *could* fox it then there is *at least* one fix that doesn't require a modification of the supply cap.”

“The goal should be to make bitcoin better, not try to "kill" other projects. Being scared of competition is a pussy move. This is why so many bitcoiners want other useful coins to fail, so that Bitcoin can be mediocre and still succeed. Bring on BIP300. make bitcoin good again.”

“I don’t think we would see so much economic activity on other chains if we had Drivechain already.”

“Drivechains are going to be the "Internet moment" of bitcoin. Instead of everyone building his own Ethernet network, everything is suddenly connected together. It will massively increase the value proposition of bitcoin, and as such, I am massively in favor of BIP 300/301.”