I don't think this scales well. Does PoW merge mining add anything for a federated system? Seems like Fedimint could accomplish a lot of these things with the right modules if you're federating. Tx costs would be way lower too and you don't need miner coordination. Maybe I'm missing something. Probably should go dig into the code. 

"""
Key Features Designed for the Bitcoin Community:
Bitcoin-Pegged Native Asset (cBTC): Users can transact in cBTC, redeemable 1:1 for Bitcoin, offering familiar Bitcoin value and reliability while enhancing flexibility.
‍Compatibility with the Lightning Network: Build Lightning apps with less complex channel logistics and swap directly to Bitcoin.
‍Hybrid Consensus: By combining Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work and a Strong Federation model, Coordinate ensures reorg-resistant transactions, providing users with enhanced security and stability.
‍Premium Transacting: Coordinate offers MEV-resistant transacting with a reverse auction fee market and finality in about one minute. Premium users avoid fee bumps and overpaying.
‍UTXO Asset Tokenization: Coordinate users can tokenize digital assets using Bitcoin’s UTXO model, opening new opportunities in decentralized finance.
‍Blob Storage for Data-Intensive Applications: Users and developers can leverage expanded block space for data storage, addressing the needs of applications that require additional capacity.
"Part of the goal behind Anduro is to achieve the Drivechain vision without any soft forks. Coordinate is a great example of what else can be done with Bitcoin when you don’t have to worry about impacting the L1 Bitcoin network”

https://www.anduro.io/blog/introducing-coordinate 

 Their own token pegged, I didn't make it past the first bullet point until I was done. 

 Cashu and fedimint Ecash is the same.  

 I used fedimint for 5 minutes to play once, never used cashu. 

I reflexively don't trust currency pegs to hold because history says they never do.

I also reflexively don't trust anything with its own token. Why did you need a token? I'm usually unimpressed with the answer. 

 Fair.  

 Just Mara doing mara shit. I don't think it's going to go anywhere.  

 I haven’t this proposal in details but I don’t understand why some people are against #drivechain based scaling solutions and would rather prefer non-custodial one like #Fedimint.

#Bitcoin 

 This one specifically is a federated side chain so even self custody has third party risk.  

 Drivechains and ordinals are a thing because the shitcoin scam engine is losing steam as most everyone has been scammed or no someone who has.

The only solution for the shitcoiners to keep the scams running is to increase the affinity to bitcoin of their affinity scams. 

 Typical anti #drivechain argument that makes no sense to me. Other #crypto will exist with or without #Bitcoin. I think #drivechains are an interesting scaling solution. At least, it’s superior to all custodial ones. 

 How so? It removes trust? 

 #Drivechains remove trust? In who? 

 Idk if they do, that's why I ask. Minimize trust is a better exactly phrasing.  

 It doesn’t change anything for those who don’t want to use drivechains. For those who do, the peg-out mechanism is trustless through merged mining. 

 Lol. It's a fork. How does that not change anything for those that donor want it? 

 It would be a soft-fork. I can’t prove this negative. Tell me how that would change something for those who don’t want it. 

 Soft-forks are inherently constraining in consensus rules.  

 That doesn’t say how #Bitcoin users who don’t want to use #drivechains would be impacted by their deployment. 

 I would have to run URSF. That's impactful.  

 It’s part of the miners and node runners responsibilities to be involved in consensus related changes. When I say #Bitcoin users I’m referring to end users as those saving and or transacting in #BTC. #Drivechains don’t impact them if they don’t want to use them. 

 Right. I'm a node runner and I don't want further constraints on consensus that enable drivechains. I am impacted, sir, as are others. Not to mention the technical fallout when normal users seek guidance on what to do. To say drivechains don't impact anything is naive and ignorant, IMHO. Any soft fork has these impacts.  

 I mean, yes any change to a protocol has some impact on some people. My point being that #drivechains wouldn’t impact #Bitcoin end users. Those who don’t want to use a #drivechain have no need to seek guidance. They’ll just keep using Bitcoin tomorrow as they do today. 

 Typical shitcoiner answer. Why go the path of enabling more scams instead of working on improving lightning or getting Ark ready for mass use? 

 #Lightning is a dead-end. I don’t know much about Ark. I’m not opposed to experimenting with different technical solutions as long as they don’t jeopardize the base chain which #drivechains don’t. The “drivechains enable shitcoins” argument is just irrational toxic #Bitcoin maxis talking point. Having drivechains on Bitcoin won’t degrade your experience with Bitcoin if you choose not to use them. If you can’t live with the idea that others may want to use a #drivechain then you think like a Bitcoin authoritarian. 

 That is the wonder of bitcoin. Feel free to fork now and run a chain that supports drivechains. I won't run it. We both get exactly what we asked for.

Trying to make me support drivechains is authoritarian. Simply stating clearly that I won't doesn't make any attempt to control anyone else.

I've spent enough time around shitcoiners to see how losing hurts them. I don't want to play any role in giving the people trying to hurt them any new angle or help. 

 I’m not forcing you to do/think anything. We’re just exchanging thoughts here. You’re free to participate in the exchange or not. #Drivechains don’t need a hard fork to be deployed, it can be deployed through a soft fork. You’re just confirming to me that the only argument against #drivechain is the non-consequential state, for those who don’t want to partake in it, of having other chains on #Bitcoin. 

 Also, LOL at lightning is a dead end from someone who doesn't even use it enough to set up zaps. 

 backward logic...why would they set up "zaps" if they don't like LN? 

 How do they know it doesn't work without using it? Those of us who use it every day tend to disagree about how well it works. 

 good for you.

perhaps you'll notice i am not using LN here either. i *could* take some time to tell you why, but i don't think it would be worth it. 

 I noticed, it cost you some free sats.

I know I'll never change your mind either. Here for onlookers who are on the fence to see the other side of the argument. 

 i'm not against changing my mind, but LN would have to work drastically differently than it does now.

i can't see that happening, but my disagreement is not with LN users. enjoy your zaps! 

 Seems a lot like Liquid. What benefits does it offer over just using Liquid? 

 No clue. Liquid also came to mind.