Should Drivechains Come to Bitcoin? With Paul Sztorc

“I don’t think we’ll ever agree on what you might call meta consensus, like what the blockchain should contain. I think people will probably continue to disagree about that, forever. And I think that sidechain is a sort of an escape valve.” — Paul Sztorc Paul Sztorc is an independent Bitcoin researcher. In this interview, we discuss drivechains, his 2015 proposal that’s the focus of BiP 300 and 301. Drivechains facilitate sidechains on Bitcoin, providing a bridge to new coins. The aim is to enable developer creativity atop Bitcoin. - - - - In October 2014 Adam Back and other prominent Bitcoin developers introduced the concept of sidechains to Bitcoin’s infrastructure. In the paper, they stated “We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own.” Paul Sztorc then developed a proposal for a version of sidechains in 2015 that were linked to Bitcoin’s mainchain. This proposal would improve on the original sidechain idea in several ways: it did not require independent miners for the sidechains, and further, it did not require a hard-fork of Bitcoin. A principle driver was to enable developers to create innovations within Bitcoin, outside of the need to develop separate token ecosystems. Various features, including a 1:1 peg, and a delayed redemption period, were designed to mitigate the incentive to create new alternative tokens for purely selfish financial reasons, whilst facilitating an ecosystem for innovation. In short, it was designed to remove the marketplace for altcoins altogether, allowing Bitcoin to foster experimentation. And yet, whilst being the basis for two Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, drivechains are still yet to be adopted by the community. This is perhaps not a surprise given Bitcoin’s focus on dependability and reasonable concerns about impinging on Bitcoin’s robust security. But, are these concerns valid? Of course, the idea that we could retain a fixed monetary supply on a secure base layer, and at the same time have the freedom to experiment with new privacy technologies and programmability seems like the best of both worlds. The question remains why this strategy has not yet been broadly supported and adopted by the network. The “work slowly and build things” philosophy in Bitcoin is a core pillar of the Bitcoin value proposition as a reliable monetary protocol. But can drivechains be a way of enabling Bitcoin to become the gravitational centre for developers? Or, do Drivechains pose an existential choice between security and progress? - - - - This episode’s sponsors: Gemini - Buy Bitcoin instantly Ledn - Financial services for Bitcoin hodlers Bitcasino - The Future of Gaming is here Pacific Bitcoin - Bitcoin‑only event, Nov 10 & 11, 2022 Ledger - State of the art Bitcoin hardware wallet Compass Mining - Bitcoin mining & hosting Cake Wallet - Open-source, privacy-focused Bitcoin wallet BCB Group - Global digital financial Services ----- WBD540 - Show Notes ----- If you enjoy The What Bitcoin Did Podcast you can help support the show by doing the following: Become a Patron and get access to shows early or help contribute Make a tip: Bitcoin: 3FiC6w7eb3dkcaNHMAnj39ANTAkv8Ufi2S QR Codes: Bitcoin If you do send a tip then please email me so that I can say thank you Subscribe on iTunes | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | YouTube | Deezer | TuneIn | RSS Feed Leave a review on iTunes Share the show and episodes with your friends and family Subscribe to the newsletter on my website Follow me on Twitter Personal | Twitter Podcast | Instagram | Medium | YouTube If you are interested in sponsoring the show, you can read more about that here or please feel free to drop me an email to discuss options.