The arguments I see on Twitter against drive chains are terrible.
It appears to me most folks on Twitter seem to favor any custodian as long as they aren't miners because it might break the incentive structure of bitcoin. The current state of Lightning is tending towards centralization because it isn't easy maintaining/running a node .
The semi/self custodial solutions would have to compete with the custodial ones and beat them in services offered to gain any considerable traction. It is way easier to self custody Bitcoin onchain than on lightning today.
Other scaling approaches needs to be on the table at this point. There would obviously be tradeoffs but that is the nature of L2s. If there were no tradeoffs, it would already be in L1. Alternatively the improvements lightning needs should be on the table. But there seems to be a lot of disdain for soft forks which I think mostly is as a result of ordinals.
The worst arguments I've heard is that it enables shitcoin on L1.
Xtr3m3hodl /
npub1749…fau3
2023-08-29 23:50:52
in reply to nevent1q…lzzs
Author Public Key
npub1749epjq95kgdher4x4rs3vpnjrthh25kryzntd9c55s6gzd4vzrqzmfau3Published at
2023-08-29 23:50:52Event JSON
{
"id": "bfff3f7958a05f7d2cdcc190576984b7e81afe5b3205a57a629f338ba7d0c86f",
"pubkey": "f54b90c805a590dbe475354708b03390d77baa96190535b4b8a521a409b56086",
"created_at": 1693345852,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2278e8659a0b391a0f725efd61c0703154483095bc06c42c2bc1bb7cbe18f9af",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b9e76546ba06456ed301d9e52bc49fa48e70a6bf2282be7a1ae72947612023dc"
],
[
"p",
"27f8c81a7d7b2b2166f283fddf71d9b7a068ffea7051e8db24d2f83d8143c188"
]
],
"content": "The arguments I see on Twitter against drive chains are terrible. \n\n\nIt appears to me most folks on Twitter seem to favor any custodian as long as they aren't miners because it might break the incentive structure of bitcoin. The current state of Lightning is tending towards centralization because it isn't easy maintaining/running a node . \n\nThe semi/self custodial solutions would have to compete with the custodial ones and beat them in services offered to gain any considerable traction. It is way easier to self custody Bitcoin onchain than on lightning today. \n\nOther scaling approaches needs to be on the table at this point. There would obviously be tradeoffs but that is the nature of L2s. If there were no tradeoffs, it would already be in L1. Alternatively the improvements lightning needs should be on the table. But there seems to be a lot of disdain for soft forks which I think mostly is as a result of ordinals.\n\nThe worst arguments I've heard is that it enables shitcoin on L1. ",
"sig": "25bb68633ad41622c727535efbe9e63d74392bd96a488b61a832990a89415270a2b251aa3556c7cd6274fbfd5245ef0333288cdfb36d959fde8ce22aafb0033e"
}