I know this argument and I don’t find it compelling. My initial point was that #covenants would mess up with the integrity of the base layer and that #drivechains wouldn’t. I maintain this view. The scenario that you outlined doesn’t show that the integrity of the base layer would be compromised. If you keep your #Bitcoin on the base layer you won’t by affected by whatever wrong thing could happen on a #drivechain.
In terms of impact, a drivechain is no different than wrapping your #BTC and sending them on another L1. Of course when doing so you’ll have to accept different security assumptions and it’s up to each of us to make this assessment.
When it comes to potential reputational damage followed by more regulations, these are second-order effects which can arise for a multitude of reasons and which are broadly out of control of the network. The strength of an unstoppable system like Bitcoin is that if it does what it’s supposed to do, it doesn’t have to worry about second-order effects as those wouldn’t directly impact the way it functions. I actually had the exact same concerns when researching drivechains (you can check out my previous posts if you want to verify) and came to the conclusions that I just discussed.
To sum it up I would say that what happens on the drivechain stays on the drivechain we can’t say the same about covenants which can profoundly change the nature of the base layer such as the emergence of parasitic on-chain KYC that would greatly impact the fungibility of your bitcoins even if you never interact with a covenant.
LogicallyMinded
npub1s0f…rqf5
2024-05-15 17:04:32
in reply to nevent1q…fntg
Author Public Key
npub1s0fs9dwztm2rukm42vh6df4a5gwykclf75tgyeuc75t0cs2eh8rsu2rqf5Published at
2024-05-15 17:04:32Event JSON
{
"id": "3582f3077ee79504c8aed884f00db0ac6e27704697e6facfc417390e9e34d2cc",
"pubkey": "83d302b5c25ed43e5b75532fa6a6bda21c4b63e9f516826798f516fc4159b9c7",
"created_at": 1715785472,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"56d1d0a7ddc72cf58ebfd18553b20cc0efc190a8eb226b3c2ef3fdc2b1a6ebc5"
],
[
"e",
"5ea676c471a6e334216e63a3b979f8e7a83366c8010ec0f6a8756887514cd906"
],
[
"p",
"e75960285a603026fbca0ff2f0bed5acf12c1994fa2b00686fd17bd4307dafb8"
],
[
"p",
"e75960285a603026fbca0ff2f0bed5acf12c1994fa2b00686fd17bd4307dafb8"
],
[
"t",
"covenants"
],
[
"t",
"drivechains"
],
[
"t",
"bitcoin"
],
[
"t",
"drivechains"
],
[
"t",
"btc"
]
],
"content": "I know this argument and I don’t find it compelling. My initial point was that #covenants would mess up with the integrity of the base layer and that #drivechains wouldn’t. I maintain this view. The scenario that you outlined doesn’t show that the integrity of the base layer would be compromised. If you keep your #Bitcoin on the base layer you won’t by affected by whatever wrong thing could happen on a #drivechain.\n\nIn terms of impact, a drivechain is no different than wrapping your #BTC and sending them on another L1. Of course when doing so you’ll have to accept different security assumptions and it’s up to each of us to make this assessment. \n\nWhen it comes to potential reputational damage followed by more regulations, these are second-order effects which can arise for a multitude of reasons and which are broadly out of control of the network. The strength of an unstoppable system like Bitcoin is that if it does what it’s supposed to do, it doesn’t have to worry about second-order effects as those wouldn’t directly impact the way it functions. I actually had the exact same concerns when researching drivechains (you can check out my previous posts if you want to verify) and came to the conclusions that I just discussed.\n\nTo sum it up I would say that what happens on the drivechain stays on the drivechain we can’t say the same about covenants which can profoundly change the nature of the base layer such as the emergence of parasitic on-chain KYC that would greatly impact the fungibility of your bitcoins even if you never interact with a covenant.",
"sig": "30342df3226117eb0a345baa85c03a2c84194ddd71c66780cb407e1aa438034b4a5021a449104f172895758d5ffb57dab1d37d4b509f4194854ba7fbe995bb30"
}