11–20 of 246 posts
On a first skim it looks like a bespoke blockchain that commits its state to the bitcoin blockchain to ensure finality. Seems kind of neat, but I wouldn't call it "smart contracts on bitcoin".
[1] https://docs.matic.network/docs/contribute/matic-architectur...
Moving bitcoins to Stacks is easy, since Stacks reads the Bitcoin chain. But how do you move them from Stacks back to the Bitcoin main chain? Since Bitcoin clients aren't aware of Stacks, it's difficult to see how that would work without trusting someone to issue the correct transaction. I looked over the Stacks site and didn't see a clear answer to this question.
Moving Bitcoin to Stacks is a bit more complicated and there are several ways:
a) Wrapped assets. Tokensoft + Anchorage (custodian) have a solution that they're calling xBTC where a "wrapped Bitcoin" is issued on the Stacks chain. Such wrapped assets exist on other chains like Ethereum as well with one main difference that xBTC is secured by Bitcoin itself.
b) There are more decentralized solutions similar to Keep network, where threshold signatures can be used to move the assets by a group of nodes.
c) The most decentralized way of doing this is by locking your BTC directly on BTC chain, using Clarity to monitor funds, and then having Clarity trigger release of funds on Bitcoin chain. This requires Clarity logic to trigger Bitcoin state changes. This is theoretically possible but at R&D stage currently.
We already have this. It's called WBTC and TBTC. Turns out it's way easier to port Bitcoin to Ethereum than to rebuild Ethereum on Bitcoin.
Moving bitcoins to Stacks is easy, since Stacks reads the Bitcoin chain. But how do you move them from Stacks back to the Bitcoin main chain? Since Bitcoin clients aren't aware of Stacks, it's difficult to see how that would work without trusting someone to issue the correct transaction. I looked over the Stacks site and didn't see a clear answer to this question.
On a first skim it looks like a bespoke blockchain that commits its state to the bitcoin blockchain to ensure finality. Seems kind of neat, but I wouldn't call it "smart contracts on bitcoin".
Clarity contracts have direct visibility into Bitcoin state and can write logic against that.
We already have this. It's called WBTC and TBTC. Turns out it's way easier to port Bitcoin to Ethereum than to rebuild Ethereum on Bitcoin.
The problem with Ethereum is that if the guys in power do not like what is going on in their blockchain, they fork and rewrite history.
ETC exists, if you don’t like ETH go use ETC, the community voted with their wallets, ETH won, give it a bone already
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Layer 2 seems to be the logical way forward - network fees have gotten ridiculous on the Bitcoin blockchain, and reducing the frequency with which you need to settle there would be a big win. On top of all the added functionality of smart contracts, of course.
Please, don't forget, Bitcoin Core (BTC) was hijacked years ago by corporate interests and purposefully crippled with high fees. From day one Bitcoin was designed to have low or no fees, it is only because Blockstream was able to wrestle control of the GitHub repo and stop the block size increase arbitrarily that high fees exists. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) long ago took over the "Bitcoin" project as designed by Satoshi Naka…
Bitcoin SV (BSV) long ago took over the "Bitcoin" project as designed by Satoshi Nakamoto and described in his White Paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with Ethereum is that if the guys in power do not like what is going on in their blockchain, they fork and rewrite history.
Oh for the love of science, GIVE IT A REST. ETC exists, if you don’t like ETH go use ETC, the community voted with their wallets, ETH won, give it a bone already
Isn't this the exact problem? That the blockchain isn't actually immutable and community will step in to revert transactions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with Ethereum is that if the guys in power do not like what is going on in their blockchain, they fork and rewrite history.
Oh for the love of science, GIVE IT A REST. ETC exists, if you don’t like ETH go use ETC, the community voted with their wallets, ETH won, give it a bone already
If there is a decision to be made between two specific blockchains, it is important to point out that one of them is not trustworthy.
Anyway at the time they received a lot of pushback from some Bitcoin core devs and some threatened to block them over their use of OP_RETURN. Wonder how sustainable Stacks approach is in comparison? Don't know if it works the same way at all - but assuming they write some data to the BTC chain to ensure validity, etc.
You can read some of the drama here - https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_af...
I'm mainly curious if the BTC core devs still are apprehensive towards these Layer 2 projects. It is one of the reasons why I thought smart contracts on BTC were a dead end, and why I ultimately sold a bunch of BTC for ETH years ago.