The Misconception of Weakening Altcoins Through Drivechains ---------------- Recently, I penned an essay on why drivechains won't eradicate altcoins, and it appears to have sparked some heated reactions. Several drivechain advocates have come forward with different responses, prompting me to write this follow-up piece to clarify my stance and address the critiques. Firstly, some argue that drivechain proponents are not actually claiming that altcoins will be eradicated. However, this is manifestly untrue. For instance, Paul Sztorc has openly stated that drivechains will eliminate 99.9% of altcoins. While the claim has been made, there is little evidence to support it. David Bailey further summarized the argument, stating that if you eliminate an altcoin's claim to technological novelty, you reduce its value to that of meme coins like Doge or Pepe. He believes this would prevent significant malinvestment. But this assertion also lacks supporting evidence, and here's why: 1. **Unaware Investors:** Most altcoin investors are barely aware of the technology and rarely examine arguments against their chosen altcoins. They are often oblivious to factors like serial scamming or the open source nature of the code, which would deter investment in a rational world. This lack of knowledge is usually only rectified after investment, by which point bias clouds their judgment. 2. **Persistence of Altcoins:** History has shown that events that should have killed off altcoins (e.g., the DAO incident, exploits, chain reorgs) haven't done so. Decisions surrounding altcoins are rarely made rationally, and the behavior of investors does not align with the homo economicus model of economic rationality. 3. **Unpopularity of Non-Premine Protocols:** We already have sidechains that allow building features using Bitcoin as the native asset, without premines or native tokens. Generally, these do not get nearly as much attention as an altcoin with its large marketing budgets and gambling potential. Without a get-rich-quick scheme to fuel the frenzy, technological advancement alone fails to garner much interest. Considering these factors, the assertion that drivechains will eliminate or even significantly weaken altcoins is unfounded. What is the purpose of drivechains if they won't diminish the popularity of altcoins? Drivechains may foster experimentation with various technical features or serve as a platform for token launches, akin to Ethereum. But this objective has been chased by nearly every altcoin since Ethereum came into existence, with few managing to dent Ethereum's popularity among altcoin investors, even in the face of its evident technical failures. This means drivechains' value is as a technical playground, which undoubtedly has value but prompts the question: Is it worth implementing through a soft fork in Bitcoin? For many Bitcoiners, the primary feature of Bitcoin is its secure value storage. Anything perceived as a distraction to this capability is likely to be met with resistance and in a consensus driven network, this means doom for the proposal. The lack of sufficient support for drivechains over the past six years illustrates this sentiment. In conclusion, the belief that drivechains will reduce or halt the proliferation of altcoins is rooted more in wishful thinking than in tangible evidence. While drivechains represent an interesting technological aspect, their impact on the altcoin space is overstated. Far from ending or even significantly curtailing the diverse altcoin gambling market, drivechains simply adds another competitor to an already saturated landscape. The real challenge remains in educating and guiding investors to make informed and rational decisions, rather than hoping for a technical silver bullet that suddenly curbs the altcoiners' desire to gamble.

For Free Subscribers: Silicon Valley and Money, Whig History, Conferences, Drivechain commentary and more! For Paid Subscribers: libbitcoin vulnerability, Payjoin over Nostr, Civkit, Nostr Password Manager and more! #Bitcoin Tech Talk #357

Bitcoin Tech Talk #357

Interesting Stuff

Moral hazards combine really terribly with narcissism. We are in an era with lots of both and they have a common cause: fiat money.

Drivechains Won't Eradicate Altcoins -------------------------------------- There's a prevailing belief among advocates that drivechains will spell the end for altcoins. The logic is simple: if drivechains exist, they can replicate any function of an altcoin on Bitcoin itself, eliminating the need for the altcoin. For example, if an altcoin boasts privacy features, those could be integrated into Bitcoin using drivechains, making the altcoin redundant. Technically, this perspective has merit. Many altcoin innovations can indeed be integrated into Bitcoin via sidechains. For example RSK is a Bitcoin sidechain that uses Ethereum's scripting language to copy its "features." However, this viewpoint misses a fundamental point. Altcoins don't thrive purely due to their technical features. In fact, their primary purpose isn't technical at all. Altcoins mainly serve to profit their founders and early investors. Take ZCash and ZClassic as examples. They are technically identical and the only difference is political. ZCash had a premine and a dev tax, ZClassic did not. They are completely redundant, yet, their coexistence remains undisturbed. At its core, the altcoin world revolves around profit and politics, not technical features. Most of these "features" are not just dubious but actively harmful, as can be seen in the many different exploits of their bad designs. Technical features are significant only if they attract new investors. In essence, they serve more as promotional tools than as core functionalities. Many mistakenly see Bitcoin's value solely in its technical attributes. While these are crucial, Bitcoin's real strength lies in its monetary nature and the decentralized scarcity it creates. Overemphasizing its technical aspects risks overlooking this foundational economic characteristic. Drivechains are an intriguing technological development, but they're not going to suddenly stop new altcoins from launching or even succeeding in getting new people to buy in. People don't buy altcoins because of features, they buy altcoins because they want to gamble. Besides, if it was just technical features, wouldn't other sidechains like Liquid and RSK be more popular than the thousands of altcoins out there? The past seven years suggest that drivechains won't change this.

Revolutions always start with ideals and end with thugs. Beware of anyone promising change. It might not be the kind you like.

Why Joe Rogan Avoids Bitcoin Discussions Joe Rogan has sidestepped Bitcoin discussions for the past seven years, despite previously hosting Andreas Antonopoulous multiple times. What's stopping him from inviting more Bitcoin enthusiasts? At the heart of it, Rogan simply may not be interested. Delving into Bitcoin discussions means wading into the relentless debates between Bitcoin and altcoin supporters. Every podcaster who touches on Bitcoin faces the pressure of giving equal time to altcoin enthusiasts. This tug-of-war is daunting, and Rogan likely prefers to sidestep it. Consider the case of Lex Friedman, who has faced criticism from both sides for trying to strike a balance. It's why Rogan doesn't have anyone on to discuss abortion, for example. It's a controversial topic and anyone you have on will destroy your standing with the segment that disagrees with you. Yet Rogan is an outspoken critic of fiat money, frequently discussing its flaws and potential for corruption. He acknowledges the problems with central bank digital currencies and even mentions Bitcoin in these contexts. His audience likely wants him to have guests on about this topic, and this is why he had Antonopoulous on before 2017. But the Bitcoin narrative became more complex around 2017 with the rise of venture capitalists and altcoin advocacy, the so-called scambrian explosion. Rogan's ignoring of Bitcoin is the result of this shift. He has a knack for sensing underlying issues, which has undoubtedly contributed to his podcasting success. Yet, Rogan's understanding of Bitcoin remains superficial. Until he fully grasps how it fixes the problems he sees, it's unlikely he'll feature a dedicated Bitcoin guest. While figures like Jack Dorsey and Adam Curry have tried to steer the conversation towards Bitcoin, Rogan refused to take the bait. It'll take a larger level of inflation or economic destruction for him to delve into this topic. The controversy will remain on Bitcoin versus altcoins and that's not something he'll be able to avoid. He needs more conviction before he'll talk about it on his show and that's not something he has yet. So instead of trying to bully him into having a guest on, just point out the obvious. Fiat money is the cause of a lot of the societal degeneration. Whether he gets it sooner or later will be up to him.

I'm planning to change my podcast format to be more of a group discussion about various topics. Max 3 people besides myself. First topic I want to host a discussion for is fiat dating. Who should I have on?