Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
Currently pondering on what makes a Bitcoin L2 actually a Bitcoin L2 (right now). I think the main two requirements are either: - does it use Bitcoin for DA - is it a PoW protocol that lets Bitcoin miners merge-mine Most “Bitcoin L2s” on Twitter right now do neither.
4 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
grantt
@grantt
What are your thoughts on Proof of Transfer with Stacks? https://x.com/muneeb/status/1514739253602930694?s=20
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
I don’t think using PoX or staking BTC makes you a Bitcoin L2. You need to pay Bitcoin for security, not use Bitcoin to pay for security imo
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
This doesn’t mean that Stacks couldn’t satisfy the other requirement however. Eg post data to bitcoin and use PoX to secure a sequencer protocol
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
grantt
@grantt
"You need to pay Bitcoin for security, not use Bitcoin to pay for security imo" What's the difference here? Either way, you're incentive aligned.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
grantt
@grantt
"[PoX] allows network participants to secure the PoX cryptocurrency network and earn a reward in the base cryptocurrency. Thus, PoX blockchains are anchored on their chosen PoW chain." https://docs.stacks.co/docs/stacks-academy/proof-of-transfer
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
janusz
@janusz
Yeah so I chatted with some of the stacks team about this yesterday and still think it’s important to separate this type of scheme from merge mining and L2s using bitcoin as DA.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
janusz
@janusz
The reason I think this is because miners cant simply opt into additionally running stacks miners. They have to do an entirely different set up
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
