3 ms·

The author's assertion that "nobody uses Bitcoin Script" is a bit silly - EVERY transaction uses Bitcoin Script, just a very simple one, for addresses [1]. The

The author's assertion that "nobody uses Bitcoin Script" is a bit silly - EVERY transaction uses Bitcoin Script, just a very simple one, for addresses [1]. The next most popular scripts implement multisig. OpenTimestamps also uses a simple script to commit a hash in a transaction. Currently uncommon uses are HTLC's which allow you to spend based on a zk-SNARK [2], and the Lightning network. I would actually say a bigger difference is that Bitcoin state is limited to a set of unspent transaction outputs with value (UTXO set), whereas Ethereum allows the script to store arbitrary state in its output. On a side note, Proof of Stake is a really cool feature if it works, but Ethereum doesn't have it, only the promise that it would hardfork to it if a viable solution is found. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script [2] https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-conting... (and yeah, I had to use Fx reader mode to parse the jumble of text at all)

Olshansky 9y ago
I agree, that was poor wording on my end... Thank you for the clarification. I should have said that it's very limited and much more difficult to use than Ethereum's smart contracts. I also wanted to avoid going into a deeper discussion that would involved the potential adoption of segwit, which would enable lightning networks and a bunch of other sidechains.
- hdhzy 9y ago
  > I should have said that it's very limited and much more difficult to use than Ethereum's smart contracts. I think the biggest issue with Bitcoin Script is that only a subset of scripts is considered "standard" [0] and only standard transactions are propagated by the network. If you can find a miner that accepts non standard TX then it's fine and blockchain already contains some interesting transactions (like lottery [1]). [0]: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/21123/which-scripts-are-currently-considered-standard-and-therefore-actually-propagate https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/21123/which-scri... [1]: https://curiosity-driven.org/bitcoin-contracts#multilottery https://curiosity-driven.org/bitcoin-contracts#multilottery
sowbug 9y ago
I've seen wallet code that is hardcoded to handle only common scripts. That'll certainly get you to your MVP faster without needing to implement the whole script engine.

Olshansky 9y ago

I agree, that was poor wording on my end... Thank you for the clarification. I should have said that it's very limited and much more difficult to use than Ethereum's smart contracts. I also wanted to avoid going into a deeper discussion that would involved the potential adoption of segwit, which would enable lightning networks and a bunch of other sidechains.

hdhzy 9y ago
> I should have said that it's very limited and much more difficult to use than Ethereum's smart contracts. I think the biggest issue with Bitcoin Script is that only a subset of scripts is considered "standard" [0] and only standard transactions are propagated by the network. If you can find a miner that accepts non standard TX then it's fine and blockchain already contains some interesting transactions (like lottery [1]). [0]: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/21123/which-scripts-are-currently-considered-standard-and-therefore-actually-propagate https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/21123/which-scri... [1]: https://curiosity-driven.org/bitcoin-contracts#multilottery https://curiosity-driven.org/bitcoin-contracts#multilottery

sowbug 9y ago

I've seen wallet code that is hardcoded to handle only common scripts. That'll certainly get you to your MVP faster without needing to implement the whole script engine.