A debate has reignited amongst Bitcoiners over a six-year-old Bitcoin Enchancment Proposal (BIP) so as to add “sidechains” on high of the community, with some warning it may improve scams on the Bitcoin community and others saying it should convey new customers of the cryptocurrency.
In the meantime, one developer claims to have discovered a method to obtain the proposal’s objective with out a tender fork of the blockchain.
The proposal in query, BIP-300 — also called Bitcoin (BTC) Drivechains — was first launched in 2017, which proposed introducing “sidechains” which can be separate blockchains on high of the Bitcoin community.
Paul Sztorc, the proposal’s creator and founding father of the Drivechain improvement agency LayerTwo Labs — which raised $3 million in December — has explained that the blockchains would enable for BTC to maneuver onto them and create altcoins.
That is how Bip300 can remove all crypto and fiat transactions, leaving solely Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/1TwQsu9ZPj
— LayerTwo Labs (@LayerTwoLabs) July 10, 2023
The talk over the proposal was kicked up once more on Aug. 22, when a Bitcoin core developer generally known as Luke Dashjr rewrote the proposal’s code and requested so as to add it to Bitcoin’s codebase.
BIP-300 would require a soft fork of Bitcoin that might be activated by miners — not in contrast to the Taproot soft fork in November 2021 that paved the way in which for the equally controversial nonfungible tokenemulating Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens that launched earlier this yr.
On Sept. 10, Maxim Orlovsky, the CEO of blockchain scaling options mission Pandora, posted on X (Twitter) claiming he was in a position to create a two-way peg on Bitcoin with out a tender fork of the blockchain, which BIP-300 requires.
Simply understood that one can do cryptoeconomically-safe trustless 2WP on #Bitcoin with none softfork as we speak – utilizing Prometheus – our 5-year previous proposal for arbitrage of any high-load Turing-complete computing on high of Bitcoin: https://t.co/NljYszgkk7 pic.twitter.com/wV5MDuqUov
— Maxim Orlovsky (@dr_orlovsky) September 10, 2023
In an accompanying note, Orlovsky defined an previous mission proposal may work as a BIP-300 different with an oracle working to validate a sidechain and “the protocol will attain consensus on whether or not the state reported by the oracle is right.”
Particulars, to this point, are sparse. Orlovsky said he would work on a paper describing the setup “in [an] comprehensible manner.”
In the meantime, BIP-300 proponents, together with Sztorc, argue that Drivechains will enable customers to decide on a blockchain safety mannequin they agree with and the way they need their Bitcoin to work. Sztorc additionally claimed the proposal has “monumental upside” with “actually zero draw back.”
Associated: No, Bitcoin withdrawals from exchanges are not inherently bullish for crypto
Others, together with Cory Klippsten, the chief of the BTC-only trade Swan Bitcoin, rejected the proposal — with Klippsten claiming Drivechains would improve the quantity of scams on Bitcoin, which can catch the ire of regulators.
One potential draw back of Drivechains:
Having a number of scams on Bitcoin will make folks and regulators (understandably) suppose that Bitcoin is stuffed with scams.
— Cory Klippsten | Swan.com #Bitcoin (@coryklippsten) August 27, 2023
Pierre Rochard, the VP of analysis at Bitcoin miner Riot Platforms, said the proposal’s messaging depends on “speculative financial arguments quite than substantive engineering ones” and added it was “pure hopium.”
Drivechain’s “pressure a softfork to kill sh*tcoins” advertising and marketing one way or the other manages to be each anti-bitcoin and anti-“crypto”. Additionally pure hopium. It’s a distraction. Robust NACK.
— Pierre Rochard (@BitcoinPierre) August 21, 2023
Others who lent their voice to help BIP-300 included educator Dan Held, who claimed that Bitcoin is best off with extra speculative belongings as they “introduce new audiences to Bitcoin.”
In the meantime, Bitcoin pockets supplier Casa co-founder Jameson Lopp mentioned he’s but to see a “convincing concern” of how sidechains could possibly be harmful to the primary Bitcoin blockchain.
I am typically in favor of lastly fulfilling the promise of 2-way pegged sidechains. I’ve but to see a convincing concern of the way it could possibly be harmful to the primary chain. Some of us have mentioned it could possibly be harmful if a sidechain turned extra worthwhile than the bottom chain, however appears…
— Jameson Lopp (@lopp) August 30, 2023
He added if a sidechain turns into extra worthwhile, it may sign that the bottom chain “ought to implement that sidechain’s options.”
Journal: Recursive inscriptions — Bitcoin ‘supercomputer’ and BTC DeFi coming soon
