Drivechain comparison with Ethereum
Drivechain comparison with Ethereum
Ethereum and other “smart contract platforms” capable of running turing-complete code and “developer-friendly” mindset and community have been running for years and they were able to produce a very low number of potentially useful “contracts”.
What are these contracts, actually? (Considering Ethereum, but others are similar:) they are sidechains that run inside the Ethereum blockchain (and thus their verification and data storage are forced upon all Ethereum nodes). Users can peg-in to a contract by depositing money on it and peg-out by making a contract operation that sends money to a normal Ethereum address.
Now be generous and imagine these platforms are able to produce 3 really cool, useful ideas (out of many thousands of attempts): Bitcoin can copy these, turn them into 3 different sidechains, each running fixed, specific, optimized code. Bitcoin users can now opt to use these platforms by transferring coins to it – all that without damaging the nodes or the consensus protocol that has been running for years, and without forcing anyone to be aware of these chains.
The process of turning a useful idea into a sidechain doesn’t come spontaneously, and can’t be done by a single company (like often happens in Ethereum-land), it must be acknowledge by a rough consensus in the Bitcoin community that that specific sidechain with that specific design is a desirable thing, and ultimately approved by miners, as they’re the ones that are going to be in charge of that.
Published at
2024-01-14 14:55:28Event JSON
{
"id": "65e37cf95be25e19294384e5586197cb4f553edba83d70f48767923051a1cb07",
"pubkey": "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d",
"created_at": 1705240528,
"kind": 30023,
"tags": [
[
"d",
"e4480e82"
],
[
"title",
"Drivechain comparison with Ethereum"
],
[
"published_at",
"1599250740"
],
[
"a",
"30023:3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d:23977266",
"wss://fiatjaf.com"
],
[
"t",
"bitcoin"
],
[
"t",
"criticism/ethereum"
]
],
"content": "\n# Drivechain comparison with Ethereum\n\nEthereum and other \"smart contract platforms\" capable of running turing-complete code and \"developer-friendly\" mindset and community have been running for years and they were able to produce a very low number of potentially useful \"contracts\".\n\nWhat are these contracts, actually? (Considering Ethereum, but others are similar:) they are sidechains that run inside the Ethereum blockchain (and thus their verification and data storage are forced upon all Ethereum nodes). Users can peg-in to a contract by depositing money on it and peg-out by making a contract operation that sends money to a normal Ethereum address.\n\nNow be generous and imagine these platforms are able to produce 3 really cool, useful ideas (out of many thousands of attempts): [Bitcoin](nostr:naddr1qqyryveexumnyd3kqyghwumn8ghj7enfv96x5ctx9e3k7mgzyqalp33lewf5vdq847t6te0wvnags0gs0mu72kz8938tn24wlfze6qcyqqq823c7nywz4) can copy these, turn them into 3 different sidechains, each running fixed, specific, optimized code. Bitcoin users can now opt to use these platforms by transferring coins to it – all that without damaging the nodes or the consensus protocol that has been running for years, and without forcing anyone to be aware of these chains.\n\nThe process of turning a useful idea into a sidechain doesn't come spontaneously, and can't be done by a single company (like often happens in Ethereum-land), it must be acknowledge by a rough consensus in the Bitcoin community that that specific sidechain with that specific design is a desirable thing, and ultimately approved by miners, as they're the ones that are going to be in charge of that.\n",
"sig": "eb80bf12c12a1c21e7fde907abb53af228598cb8061cdabfce08d0ef6546524f6f6672192614362ca286284c1fcf63047a0e297f7f0e307b5ba203ef138a94b2"
}
