Contrary to the headline this appear to be a separate blockchain that is merely linked to the Bitcoin blockchain. See https://www.stacks.co/technology
Smart contracts on Bitcoin
71–80 of 246 posts
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 miners supposed to be compensated, given that the block reward halves every few years? A solved problem by Satoshi. The block reward covers miners expenses for the next 100 years or so, THEN, once the block size is large enough and transactions are in the millions, a fee of a few cents per transaction replaces the block reward. > Can you rebut these counter-claims made by one of the Core devs? Yes, easily.…
> The block reward covers miners expenses for the next 100 years or so
No, it does not. It becomes insignificant in just a few decades (getting 32x smaller every 20 years). So a constant backlog of high fee paying transaction is important to long term security [1].
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#73We 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.
You have pretty selective memory:
https://coincodex.com/article/3669/the-184-billion-btc-bug-t...
Fundamentally blockchains are about consensus, they have a mechanism to obtain consensus programatically but this programatic consensus can always be overriden if the participants decided to run a different version of the software. To be noted that the guys "in power" are the miners, the developers can only put forward a new version of the rules but the miners decide what they want to run.
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, no? There are two cryptocurrencies, ETH and ETC, and apparently most people think it's fine to revert a transaction for the reason ETH reverted it. The only problem is that people posit "but it's a problem when transactions are reverted, and, look, ETH reverts transactions!", which assumes the problem even though the assumption doesn't really seem to hold.
>The only problem is that people posit "but it's a problem when transactions are reverted, and, look, ETH reverts transactions!", which assumes the problem even though the assumption doesn't really seem to hold. But if all we cared about is the "right" thing to be done at the end, why bother with smart contracts? Why not use the courts?
I'm not the right person to ask, as I don't believe that there's a way to somehow make software bug-free enough to deal with huge amounts of money for an indefinite amount of time. However, it seems that enough people think that "do the right thing automatically unless someone steals millions, in which case revert it" is a good compromise.
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#75What kind of actual real world use-cases has ethereum's programmable "contracts" enabled? It's been out there for a while yet I fail to see where it made an impact.
There is decentralised finance (defi). One example of application is lending your money (in stablecoin or token format) in a lending protocol of your choice. You can expect a very good yield compared to traditional finance. Aave and Compound are the most famous. This is one type of the many financial applications developed on Ethereum's smart contracts.
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#76I'm not sure I've gotten a clear answer to this before, so someone please help me understand: I can see how smart contracts might be useful in contracts that involve other assets that are directly connected in the same decentralized context (i.e., other bitcoin transactions or blockchain entities). However, for anything else in the real world, they always (from what I've seen) require an "oracle" of some kind. True,…
Smart contracts are mathematical contracts not legal contracts. They don't even have to be about IRL things. You could interact with a smart contract to, for example, change who can be authenticated to use a smart lock. Or you could have profile information about yourself in a contract, that can be changed.
Cool - glad you brought up the smart lock example. How does that work without trusting (presumably off-chain) software/firmware to honor the change as to who should be able to open the lock? The smart contract might be iron-clad in showing who should have access, but at some point, that has to be interpreted and executed by a real-world entity, human or machine.
In other words, standard contracts work just fine (without any lawyers involved) when everything goes to plan. It's the failure cases that matter, and it's not hard to imagine a compromised lock (or an entire company's locks if they're connected to the internet for access to the blockchain) that no longer respect the smart contract. So you're back to calling your lawyer to help sort out the mess.
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#77What kind of actual real world use-cases has ethereum's programmable "contracts" enabled? It's been out there for a while yet I fail to see where it made an impact.
One of the most exciting upcoming topics on the Avalanche (sorry, not Ethereum) ecosystem is ILOs (Initial Litigation Offering). Initial Litigation Offering is a blockchain-enabled token that would give investors access to a portion of payouts from lawsuits.
https://www.coinspeaker.com/first-ilo-launches-avalanche/
I think we'll see many more of these in the future.
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#78Just a look through the docs this all reads much better than ethereum. For give me as I am still new to the rapid new things happening in this space.
What's is the ballpark transaction cost?
Also, I was curious what made it difficult to have smart contracts in bitcoin in the first place? I wasn't quite sure why others were not simply having done smart contracts like ethereum and hope to be better educated the solution here. thanks!
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How are miners supposed to be compensated, given that the block reward halves every few years? A solved problem by Satoshi. The block reward covers miners expenses for the next 100 years or so, THEN, once the block size is large enough and transactions are in the millions, a fee of a few cents per transaction replaces the block reward. > Can you rebut these counter-claims made by one of the Core devs? Yes, easily.…
> The block reward covers miners expenses for the next 100 years or so No, it does not. It becomes insignificant in just a few decades (getting 32x smaller every 20 years). So a constant backlog of high fee paying transaction is important to long term security [1]. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306354.0
Yeah, in about 70 years, the block subsidy for the entire year will only be 0.01373184 BTC. I highly doubt that would be enough to guard almost 21 million BTC from double spend attacks. That's the equivalent of spending $70,000/year to guard all the gold that's ever been mined.
Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin
#80Contrary to the headline this appear to be a separate blockchain that is merely linked to the Bitcoin blockchain. See https://www.stacks.co/technology
The Clarity smart contracts have direct visibility into Bitcoin state and developers can write logic around it. I do not think the headline implies you are changing Bitcoin to do this (don't think at this point anyone can change Bitcoin in any significant way).