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

181–190 of 246 posts

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#181

Post by muneeb »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #158
muneeb wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Muneeb here, Stacks co-founder. So it does not use Bitcoin as oracle. It uses Bitcoin as a settlement layer. (Oracles like Chainlink can be, and are being, built using Clarity lang for Stacks blockchain itself.) For using Bitcoin state on Ethereum, you'll need to implement Bitcoin SPV proofs. It's entirely possible but fairly complicated to do that given (a) Ethereum is a separate network that can fork independently…

People are asking you why this counts as "on Bitcoin", and you've been saying throughout this thread it's because it has access to the Bitcoin ledger data. My point is that it pretty much sounds like you're using BTC as an "oracle" (and of course, you're using BTC as settlement, but that's a given, and also doesn't qualify as being "on bitcoin"). Stacks is a separate ledger that pegs itself to Bitcoin, not "on". "Sma…

What you are describing is similar to what Stacks 1.0 was i.e., directly on top of the Bitcoin chain -- a virtualchain. Every Stacks 1.0 transaction was a Bitcoin transaction.

The lessons we learned from that deployment for 2+ years is that (a) it doesn't scale that well and (b) it's very hard to modify Bitcoin and get new changes accepted (for good reason), so you end up with very limited scripting.

To fix the two limitations of Stacks 1.0, we worked on Stacks 2.0 which has a separate blockchain (so scalability independent of Bitcoin) where settlements still happen on Bitcoin and, more importantly, a full smart contract language without modifying Bitcoin itself: https://clarity-lang.org

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#182

Post by muneeb »

qixxiq wrote: post #140

Following the links down a hole a little bit I saw this statement: "Bitcoin is by far the largest and most secure blockchain"[1] Sure it's the largest, but it seems ETH2 might now be the most secure. It (at current prices) has $2,400,000,000 staked in the network. Sure this is still in the league of nation states to corrupt, but the penalties for breaking the rules are _so much higher_. Given that, and the fact that…

Ethereum 2 is very different. It is proof of stake (PoS). This reuses the proof of work of Bitcoin (so very different properties for how hard it is to change blockchain history). Also, PoS has some bootstrapping issues where a new node cannot independently (without trusting other nodes) verify the history of blockchains.

Scalability properties are also very different. Eth2 tried the concepts of sharding between chains. That has issues around added complexity between the shards and contracts needing to execute on shards where other data/logic they need is already available (so gravitational pull towards a mega shard). Stacks has no shards and scales horizontally. FWIW, Eth2 seems to be doing a slow move away from the sharding concept towards layer-2 like scalability as well. They disabled code execution for shards and using them more for data availability in latest iterations.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#183

Post by CryptoPunk »

opreturn wrote: post #149
px43 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notably, Vitalik was run out on a rail by small blockers (mostly LukeJr) when he was trying to work on smart contracts on BTC back in the day. This is the entire reason he launched Ethereum, and took with him everyone else interested in working on smart contracts. Smart contracts are neat. Bitcoin is neat. Smart contracts on Bitcoin could have been a thing, but now it's too late. There is almost zero intersection bet…

> .. now it's too late. Perhaps it is too late for replicating existing use cases. However, the general idea of running EVM-like smart contracts secured by Bitcoin PoW (e.g. merge mined sidechains) is still quite attractive

Counterparty eventually adopted the EVM, and yet could not get traction for multiple reasons:

1. Network effects already on Ethereum

2. Bitcoin block time too slow and block size too low

3. Counterparty uses Bitcoin as a data layer, but Bitcoin itself cannot recognize Counterparty transactions, so Bitcoin consensus does not secure Counterparty transactions.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#184

Post by muneeb »

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.

I'd argue the inverse.

It's easier to build more complex things on top of simpler primitives than vice versa. So a simpler base layer (say TCP/IP for the internet) opens the doors to more complex things on top (say http or JavaScript).

You don't want a Solidity bug (and there are many) to mess with the supply or ownership of Bitcoin. The limited/simple scripting language is there for a reason. It's easy to add complexity and more functionality at Bitcoin base layer: the decision to not do it is the hard (but in my view the right) choice.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#185

Post by CryptoPunk »

grubles wrote: post #159
PhantomPhreak wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Creator of Counterparty here. It's funny to think that if the Core devs hadn't be so incredibly resistant to people using the Bitcoin blockchain in unexpected ways, Ethereum wouldn't exist in its current form. See https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/929804867568373760

Vitalik's claim is a lie. No "OP_RETURN wars" happened. It's a complete fabrication. See https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1187470076833697794

I remember the hostility by certain Core devs to OP_RETURN being used for "ulterior" purposes. I remember the push to reduce the size of OP_RETURN to 40 bytes to sabotage smart contracts.

source: https://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-cha...

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#186

Post by xirbeosbwo1234 »

qixxiq wrote: post #140

Following the links down a hole a little bit I saw this statement: "Bitcoin is by far the largest and most secure blockchain"[1] Sure it's the largest, but it seems ETH2 might now be the most secure. It (at current prices) has $2,400,000,000 staked in the network. Sure this is still in the league of nation states to corrupt, but the penalties for breaking the rules are _so much higher_. Given that, and the fact that…

My laptop is more secure than any cryptocurrency by a wide margin. The programming and security model of Ethereum is absolutely bonkers, with front-running bots running rampant and "smart" contracts getting their funds siphoned every day.

Remember the DAO? Man was that funny. I'm still shocked that that wasn't the end of this whole Bitcoin fad.

Let's not let big numbers obscure the fact that the model is fundamentally broken. You could spend a quadrillion dollars building a cryptocurrency and I could still get a faster and more secure system for $50 on eBay.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#187

Post by CryptoPunk »

itiman wrote: post #48

How much does it cost to interact with it? On an Ethereum smart contract if I wanna purchase a NFT that costs $5 the transaction cost can be between $1 or $100.

Off-tangent, but Immutable, the makers of Gods Unchained, is coming out with ImmutableX for trading NFTs on Ethereum at fees of less than a cent:

https://www.immutable.com/

This uses StarkWare's new Turing Complete programming language for generating STARK proofs (which are succinct zero knowledge proofs that have a trustless setup).

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#188

Post by CryptoPunk »

agumonkey wrote: post #89

Who here things blockchain as a planet wide computing system will take over the world ? I had a feeling that this would be the actual shift in use of computing. Unlike the e-commerce, cloud .. which are structurally similar to the previous world. I'm not preaching for blockchains, it was just a feeling that it could be an actual paradigm shift.

I firmly believe this. It is taking the digitization of the world to the last economic layer: governance and law.

But I also believe we are very very early, and it will take maybe 30 years to develop to start massively transforming industries.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#189

Post by KMag »

muneeb wrote: post #182
qixxiq wrote: post #140

Following the links down a hole a little bit I saw this statement: "Bitcoin is by far the largest and most secure blockchain"[1] Sure it's the largest, but it seems ETH2 might now be the most secure. It (at current prices) has $2,400,000,000 staked in the network. Sure this is still in the league of nation states to corrupt, but the penalties for breaking the rules are _so much higher_. Given that, and the fact that…

Ethereum 2 is very different. It is proof of stake (PoS). This reuses the proof of work of Bitcoin (so very different properties for how hard it is to change blockchain history). Also, PoS has some bootstrapping issues where a new node cannot independently (without trusting other nodes) verify the history of blockchains. Scalability properties are also very different. Eth2 tried the concepts of sharding between chain…

> layer-2 like scalability

Sorry, I'm not familiar with any blockchain layer model. Do you have a reference to the model this "layer-2" comes from? Clearly we're not talking about the OSI network model.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#190

Post by nvdr »

opreturn wrote: post #180
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Bitcoin miner that can 51% attack the network will need a huge factory full of mining rigs. A proof of stake miner who wants to 51% attack doesn't need that.

.. that factory full of rigs and a power plant with the capacity of Arkansas Nuclear One

That or maybe just a few colluding mining pools. The network is only 'secure' because mining cartels own most of the specialised hardware, increasing difficultly. ETH 2.0 starts to pool all that power back abit, by allowing others to compete for staking rewards.
Post reply on HN