Drivechain - scaling solution?

[d5000]

but as i mentioned above if some services only transact with (in YOUR!! scenario of continents) continent X. then they wont care/need to protect something they are not using and will only protect what they do use..

No. Because all drivechains are two-way-pegged to the Bitcoin main chain, without Bitcoin their tokens would be worth nothing (or at least, much less than with a working peg). Businesses and people that are aware of that relation will run a full Bitcoin main chain node to protect their whole investment.

I estimate that drivechains will lead to a growth of use cases (because of the lower fees) and thus a usage growth in Bitcoin, because de facto they are a capacity increase. So it's very unlikely the full node number will go down - it is possible that it will grow slower than before, but in my opinion it will not grow slower as in the scenario of a big-block Bitcoin because full nodes would be much less costly, as I outlined in my previous posts. 

[1714845962]

1714845962

[1714845962]

1714845962

[1714845962]

1714845962

[1714845962]

1714845962

[1714845962]

1714845962

[franky1]

but as i mentioned above if some services only transact with (in YOUR!! scenario of continents) continent X. then they wont care/need to protect something they are not using and will only protect what they do use..

No. Because all drivechains are two-way-pegged to the Bitcoin main chain, without Bitcoin their tokens would be worth nothing (or at least, much less than with a working peg). Businesses and people that are aware of that relation will run a full Bitcoin main chain node to protect their whole investment.

once the pegged swap is done.. the transactions on another chain will only be held on that other chains ledger/database. so users wont care much for protecting a bitcoins chain, which they dont transact on any longer.

remember people mainly run a full node to see when their transactions arrive and fully validate the transactions they hold as the main selfish/personal concern..
the moral/ethics of 'protecting the network' is more of an afterthought.. not the priority.
this is why you see many full nodes not running for months on end. and only running for a few hours to resync and see their own new totals when they want to transact.. so thats why my mindset is that the psychology of full node users is predominantly about personal use and network protect is the after thought. not the other way round

also the amount of merchants/businesses is not 7000 nodes. but more like a couple hundred nodes. so like i said there will still be some that run 2 nodes.. but there would be a noticable drop of full node bitcoin count.. again not large 100% drop or 80% drop but a noticable drop.

im personally less concerned of the node count drop due to 'drivechain'. and more concerned with a nodecount drop due to the cesspit of all the stripped, prunned nodes leaching(torrent analogy) the network vs the amount of true seed(torrent analogy) full archival nodes

I estimate that drivechains will lead to a growth of use cases (because of the lower fees) and thus a usage growth in Bitcoin, because de facto they are a capacity increase. So it's very unlikely the full node number will go down - it is possible that it will grow slower than before, but in my opinion it will not grow slower as in the scenario of a big-block Bitcoin because full nodes would be much less costly, as I outlined in my previous posts.  

it all depends on what features/differences these altcoins offer.. yea ya i know you prefer to call them drive chains. but im more of a realist.. its a pegged altcoin concept

[d5000]

remember people mainly run a full node to see when their transactions arrive and fully validate the transactions they hold as the main selfish/personal concern..
[...]so thats why my mindset is that the psychology of full node users is predominantly about personal use and network protect is the after thought. not the other way round

I still don't think that much nodes would get lost. There is other effect that has to be taken into account: Even if it's true that a drivechain is a "pegged altcoin", people that use it would like to run "Bitcoin" and not an "Europecoin" for example. So they would look for a Bitcoin client. And Bitcoin.org probably would offer to download clients with the main chain and the main drivechains (as opt-in).

also the amount of merchants/businesses is not 7000 nodes. but more like a couple hundred nodes.

That would change if the drivechains would made Bitcoin more attractive for merchants because of the lower transaction fees. (I would like to see a serious estimation, though )

All that makes me believe that there could be a small drop of full nodes initially, but they would soon be outnumbered by the new nodes due to new merchants.

im personally less concerned of the node count drop due to 'drivechain'. and more concerned with a nodecount drop due to the cesspit of all the stripped, prunned nodes leaching(torrent analogy) the network vs the amount of true seed(torrent analogy) full archival nodes

But I estimate that would be worse if we switch to significantly larger blocks (8MB+). Then the cost to run a full archival node would be much higher. In the drivechain scenario, a typical full node would archive the main blockchain and the preferred drivechain. As the main blockchain archive is the most important one, this would lead to higher redundancy of the most important transaction data.

I consider this point not that important, though - as the main "sense" of full nodes for the security of the ecosystem is the assumption that they are a economic counter-power to miners, but nodes with small holdings wouldn't add much security here. So the couple of hundreds or thousands 24/7 online business nodes would be, in fact, more important than the (larger) number of standard full nodes.

Drivechains could even maybe be designed in a way that they expire after a certain date and a new drivechain is created, and so they would virtually not add any significant "storing/archival cost". In this case a full node including the main chain could be cheaper than today, with 10x or more capacity of the system.

[franky1]

the thing you got to realise is those using the 'drivechain' would do so because of some reason they wont want to stick with bitcoin.
also the purpose of drive chain is to have a SEPARATE ledger so that it does not clog up peoples computers.(crybabies 2mb=gigabytes by midnight facepalming fud)

EG the drivechain and BS guys prefer to have many chains of EG 4 chains of 2mb rather than 1 chain of 8mb.

so all those cry babies that dont want dynamic blocks ('bigger blocks') and want to stick with 1-2mb blocks by using drivechains, are not going to be the guys that will be running 2 nodes. other wise their hard drives will still be filling up by MORE than 2mb every ~10mins.. if they were to run all the chains.. thus dfeating the point in having the drive chain facility..

if those cry babies did run both.. then what is the friggen point in crying about bitcoins mainnet growing bigger than 2mb!! because the result would be more than 2mb of data per average block period, and all the bandwidth that goes along with it by running both.


you got to think about the psychology of it all and not just the hope/moral of protecting bitcoin many hope others have (but most usually dont)

[d5000]

the thing you got to realise is those using the 'drivechain' would do so because of some reason they wont want to stick with bitcoin.

I already mentioned that the main reason I expect  is smaller transaction fees. There could be others like enhanced smart contract capabilities (e.g. Rootstock), or faster block times, but that depends on the drivechain.

And no, if they "won't want to stick with Bitcoin" they would be using directly a non-pegged altcoin. Drivechain users would like to use the Bitcoin value token, but with better conditions than if there were only one ledger. 

so all those cry babies that dont want dynamic blocks ('bigger blocks') and want to stick with 1-2mb blocks by using drivechains, are not going to be the guys that will be running 2 nodes. other wise their hard drives will still be filling up by MORE than 2mb every ~10mins.. if they were to run all the chains..

Read my previous posts. The "crybabies" wouldn't have to use all drivechains, they would probably use less than a third of them. Using all drivechains would not make sense (only if they altruistically want to run an archival node for all drivechains).

And the reason why many Core supporters are so cautious with bigger blocks (at least those that are thinking a bit) is that they don't want to force people to use a big blockchain where every tip or Satoshi Dice gamble would be stored until the end of the world.

PS: It would be really cool to discuss the Drivechain concept in this thread and not only random advantages and disadvantages of random pegged sidechains. But I think I'm being delusional