Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smart contracts on Bitcoin

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 246 posts

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#21

Post by spicybright »

kylebenzle wrote: post #10
mason55 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turns out it's way easier to port Bitcoin to Ethereum than to rebuild Ethereum on Bitcoin. Technically that might be the case but in the real world you have network effects, inertia, and all kinds of other reason why it might be desirable to go in the other direction. The ease has to be examined from the perspective of the system as a whole and not just the one component.

The Bitcoin Core (BTC) market is pushed forward only by fraud (Tether) and lies (censorship of BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin). The Bitcoin Core project was hijacked and socially engineered away from the lead developers many years ago by Adam Back's Blockstream. Today it is a Ponzi scheme designed to push people onto their "second layer" solutions to "solve" the problems they themselves introduced.

Any hard evidence you can point to?

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#22

Post by muneeb »

x3sphere wrote: post #20

I remember Counterparty (XCP) tried something like this a long time ago. Not full blown smart contracts, but things like asset creation (tokens) and decentralized exchanges like on Ethereum. 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 sam…

We received some push back for Stacks 1.0 as well! And for similar reasons i.e., you don't want to put a lot of additional data into the Bitcoin blockchain (makes it much harder to scale Bitcoin that way).

This was the primary reason why for Stacks 2.0, a hard design requirement was to make absolutely no changes to Bitcoin and to not put additional data in Bitcoin.

With Stacks thousands of STX transactions result in a single hash on Bitcoin (technically on the order of active miners on Bitcoin), so Stacks transactions automatically settle on Bitcoin every block.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#23

Post by CyberDildonics »

mason55 wrote: post #8
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #5

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.

> Turns out it's way easier to port Bitcoin to Ethereum than to rebuild Ethereum on Bitcoin. Technically that might be the case but in the real world you have network effects, inertia, and all kinds of other reason why it might be desirable to go in the other direction. The ease has to be examined from the perspective of the system as a whole and not just the one component.

Right now the average transaction on the bitcoin chain is almost $15. That's double the cost of the hard drive space to store the entire blockchain (if you really want to).

No sane person would build on top of bitcoin or use anything built on top of bitcoin. It was taken over then redesigned to be a disaster and now it is.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#24

Post by brighton36 »

TekMol wrote: post #19
malux85 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think there is no point in "giving it a rest". 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.

All blockchains are secured by trust in the developers. Proof of work is merely a way to buy their token from a power company. All of the problems with have with online contention, will manifest in blockchain for this reason.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#26

Post by gruez »

kylebenzle wrote: post #7
cal5k wrote: post #4

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…

>From day one Bitcoin was designed to have low or no fees

How are miners supposed to be compensated, given that the block reward halves every few years?

>because Blockstream was able to wrestle control of the GitHub repo

Can you rebut these counter-claims made by one of the Core devs? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25566420

>is a broken system designed to enrich developers of "Second Layer" solutions like this.

How are those developers being enriched? Lightning is free and open source.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#27

Post by kylebenzle »

spicybright wrote: post #21
kylebenzle wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bitcoin Core (BTC) market is pushed forward only by fraud (Tether) and lies (censorship of BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin). The Bitcoin Core project was hijacked and socially engineered away from the lead developers many years ago by Adam Back's Blockstream. Today it is a Ponzi scheme designed to push people onto their "second layer" solutions to "solve" the problems they themselves introduced.

Any hard evidence you can point to?

Evidence that Tether is a fraud [1] and that BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin censor[2]? Yes, there is endless evidence of both. Funny that the truth about Bitcoin get downvoted so hard here, I thought HN liked to be objective about Crypto.

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/160905/tether-cryptocurrency...

[2] https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisite...

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#28

Post by kylebenzle »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #23
mason55 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turns out it's way easier to port Bitcoin to Ethereum than to rebuild Ethereum on Bitcoin. Technically that might be the case but in the real world you have network effects, inertia, and all kinds of other reason why it might be desirable to go in the other direction. The ease has to be examined from the perspective of the system as a whole and not just the one component.

Right now the average transaction on the bitcoin chain is almost $15. That's double the cost of the hard drive space to store the entire blockchain (if you really want to). No sane person would build on top of bitcoin or use anything built on top of bitcoin. It was taken over then redesigned to be a disaster and now it is.

You are exactly right. The Bitcoin Core GitHub repo was hijacked years ago by Greg Maxwell's and Adam Back's Blockstream.

Until more people understand the history of Bitcoin Core (BTC) they will continue to be confused about the high fees and slow confirmation times.

[1] https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisite...

edit: looks like you are getting downvoted too for telling the truth about Bitcoin Core.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#30

Post by robcohen »

malux85 wrote: post #16
TekMol wrote: post #13

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

Well the true genius of Eth was making choosing the fork the default option. So no, there isn't evidence that the community intended to accept the fork.
Post reply on HN