11–20 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The source is suspect for sure, but the information is true on this specific point. Bitcoin does have smart contracts, and op codes. Thats correct, regardless of your disagreements with the source.
opcodes that are almost all disabled in the real bitcoin
This article goes off the rails for me with this statement: > Their starting point was the observation that Ethereum "smart contract" execution is order-dependent within a block, unlike transaction execution in Bitcoin and similar systems: ... First, Bitcoin runs smart contracts [1]. The lie to the contrary has seeped into almost every discussion of Bitcoin vs. Ethereum, and this author appears to have taken the bait…
This is an honest question as I _really_ don't know the answer, but aren't bitcoin contracts technically white-listed? The opcodes exist, yes, but you can't just create a random contract and have it work?
(The 'almost completely' there refers to operations that do literally nothing and are reserved for future extensions).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an honest question as I _really_ don't know the answer, but aren't bitcoin contracts technically white-listed? The opcodes exist, yes, but you can't just create a random contract and have it work?
That hasn't been correct since Feb 2015: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.10.0#standard-script-rules... (The 'almost completely' there refers to operations that do literally nothing and are reserved for future extensions).
This article goes off the rails for me with this statement: > Their starting point was the observation that Ethereum "smart contract" execution is order-dependent within a block, unlike transaction execution in Bitcoin and similar systems: ... First, Bitcoin runs smart contracts [1]. The lie to the contrary has seeped into almost every discussion of Bitcoin vs. Ethereum, and this author appears to have taken the bait…
This is an honest question as I _really_ don't know the answer, but aren't bitcoin contracts technically white-listed? The opcodes exist, yes, but you can't just create a random contract and have it work?
This article goes off the rails for me with this statement: > Their starting point was the observation that Ethereum "smart contract" execution is order-dependent within a block, unlike transaction execution in Bitcoin and similar systems: ... First, Bitcoin runs smart contracts [1]. The lie to the contrary has seeped into almost every discussion of Bitcoin vs. Ethereum, and this author appears to have taken the bait…
That's a little confused. Yes, bitcoin transactions are order dependent but only in the extremely narrow sense that a transactions can't double spend the same inputs and can't spend an output that hasn't been created yet.
Significant care has gone into assuring that bitcoin's script language remains a pure function of the transaction itself, so that all script validation can be performed once for a given transaction, can be performed with total parallelism with all other transactions, and isn't changed by adding/removing/reordering transactions. This means that any dependency between transactions must be explicit, by having the transactions consume outputs (which can be zero value) from the transactions they depend on.
Reordering transactions might change their validity due to input conflicts (which can be resolved very quickly using a hash table), but not due to the expensive-to-validate scripts in the transactions.
In ethereum contracts have fairly promiscuous access to shared data, including arbitrarily computed on the fly addresses. To discover a transactions dependencies you must execute it. One could imagine an implementation that executed all transactions eagerly in parallel, recorded a transcript of the data they touched, performed a union-find to cluster them, accepted one transaction from each disjoint cluster, then sequentially executed every remaining transaction (you can't execute the clusters in parallel, because their dependencies will change on re-execution with different state). ... but since dependencies are extremely common (people love to think sequentially, and the system makes that the easiest way to program) I expect that this would actually be a lot slower in practice in spite of the initial parallelism.
Aside, please don't link "bitcoinsv" -- it's a scam site setup by a conman that pretends to be Bitcoin's creator and uses billion dollar lawsuits to silence people who call out his fraud.
I hope this becomes more common knowledge! All mining calculators are wrong as they predict earnings that are upwards of 80% lower than reality, for some people. There have been extended periods of time (weeks, months) where this has been true.
This is also one of the promises of the blockchain concept, in the Satoshi paper for Bitcoin, the idea is for transaction fees to exceed the block reward subsidy, in Bitcoin the hope is that it occurs before the year 2140, in Ethereum it has been occurring for several years, which is a great big deal. But it doesnt mean the outcome is good, we just dont have to wait to see how it plays out.
This article goes off the rails for me with this statement: > Their starting point was the observation that Ethereum "smart contract" execution is order-dependent within a block, unlike transaction execution in Bitcoin and similar systems: ... First, Bitcoin runs smart contracts [1]. The lie to the contrary has seeped into almost every discussion of Bitcoin vs. Ethereum, and this author appears to have taken the bait…
You're citing bitcoin sv? Is this a joke?
This effort is effectively dead, for what it's worth. We've moved beyond this, it was going to over-complicate things and Layer 2 is a much better scaling solution that is already starting to work in production.