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

191–200 of 246 posts

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#191

Post by dlubarov »

KMag wrote: post #189
muneeb wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Layer 2 protocols are just those that operate "on top of" a base protocol, such as Lightning Network (on top of Bitcoin), roll_up (on top of Ethereum), or POA Network (also Ethereum).

(I would argue that the terms are imprecise though -- some protocols are described as operating "on top of Ethereum", but have their own consensus etc. which can function without Eth, so they could also be viewed as layer 1s with a bridge.)

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#193

Post by opreturn »

px43 wrote: post #166
opreturn wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> .. 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

First off I recognize and appreciate your username :-) As such, you should know more than anyone how heated the OP_RETURN drama got, and how ANYONE using the BTC chain for anything other than moving money from point A to point B is a complete non-started and will be unanimously opposed by the core development team.

:-) Yeah. There's some baggage there, but I was still surprised nobody wanted this username.

Core devs may not agree with what some users do with the system (current specs/features).. but as the Ethereum miners showed with increase in block size, core devs' philosophical objections may not matter in the end

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#194

Post by opreturn »

grubles wrote: post #160
opreturn wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> .. 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

Only if you enjoy all of the negatives of EVM-like smart contracts including chain splits, gas problems, subtle bugs that could drive exchanges to insolvency, mass theft, broken multisig, the list goes on...

I don't enjoy the negatives. We'll move to better alternatives as they become available. Until then.. it's just like democracy or free markets.. no demonstrably superior alternatives yet

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#195

Post by chemmail »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #153
jtsiskin wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure of the argument - so it results in rich get richer In PoW, the same 'rich get richer' applies - miners can buy more mining rigs and thus it compounds the same? miners invest heavily in constantly innovating and investing back into the network In PoS, is this not exactly the same, if not even more true? Stakers are by definition highly invested into the network The whole system could collapse overnight li…

> so it results in rich get richer In PoW, the same 'rich get richer' applies - miners can buy more mining rigs and thus it compounds the same? In theory, if and when proof of mining actually becomes the mainstream vehicle for global financial transactions, simply buying more mining rigs won't be enough. They will need to institutionalize and reinvest heavily into their infra. The mining rig that could find ten block…

All fine in theory, but the rich will find a way. BTC hasn't really been 51% attacked yet, so the attack vector was buy up all the commit devs.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#196

Post by cft »

muneeb wrote: post #181
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

When I read "Smart contacts on Bitcoin", I though you have somehow encoded smart contract logic in a novel Bitcoin output script, and that this contract script is thus executed by the Bitcoin miners. If you just use the Bitcoin output scripts to store some data, I would make a better name for your product.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#197

Post by hanniabu »

postcynical wrote: post #173
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so it results in rich get richer In PoW, the same 'rich get richer' applies - miners can buy more mining rigs and thus it compounds the same? In theory, if and when proof of mining actually becomes the mainstream vehicle for global financial transactions, simply buying more mining rigs won't be enough. They will need to institutionalize and reinvest heavily into their infra. The mining rig that could find ten block…

> With proof of stake, you can literally throw around money to gain influence over a network. But can't you do the same with PoW. You just throw money at minners and buy their rigs or rent them for a good premium.

This guy is a clear bitcoin maximalist and is making exceptions saying that anything is good for PoW and taking that same thing and saying it's bad for PoS.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#198

Post by hanniabu »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #154
ryebit wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the stakers only need to make an investment once in the beginning > The whole system could collapse overnight like a domino if something goes wrong IMO, these two things are one of the main points of tension which PoS uses to operate. The stakers have put up a significant amount of value, and it's in their interest to maintain that value by preventing things from going wrong. Not only that, but they are actively pi…

see my comment in sibling thread. with proof of work, it's not just about money. proof of work mining forces miners to invest through future commitment, which means you can't just bring some one time money and gain influence. For proof of stake it's only about the present.

When you buy mining power you are bringing money in to gain influence. There's literally no difference so I'm led to believe there's a bias making you think there is.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#199

Post by hanniabu »

muneeb wrote: post #181
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

You pretty much just explained why they're right and how it's not built in bitcoin.

Definitely not a fan how you're trying to bend reality for marketing benefits.

Re: Smart contracts on Bitcoin

#200

Post by predictmktegirl »

Honestly, I like the idea, although I'd prefer a pure L2 for security rather than a sidechain, which is what this appears to be. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a tech problem. How do you get the devs to move en masse from Ethereum back to BTC? The network effects are just so enormous, it feels like a catastrophic failure needs to happen to Eth at this point.

I'll check it out and play around, will never say never. I'm just generally skeptical of sidechains because why can't Eth just be a sidechain to BTC, or various incarnations of the same end like atomic swaps, BTC collateralization, etc?

Post reply on HN