11 ms·

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.

mason55 6y ago
> Turns out it's way easier to port Bitcoin to Ethereum than to rebuild Ethereum on Bitcoin. Technically that might be the case but in the real world you have network effects, inertia, and all kinds of other reason why it might be desirable to go in the other direction. The ease has to be examined from the perspective of the system as a whole and not just the one component.
- kylebenzle 6y ago
  The Bitcoin Core (BTC) market is pushed forward only by fraud (Tether) and lies (censorship of BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin). The Bitcoin Core project was hijacked and socially engineered away from the lead developers many years ago by Adam Back's Blockstream. Today it is a Ponzi scheme designed to push people onto their "second layer" solutions to "solve" the problems they themselves introduced.
  - spicybright 6y ago
    Any hard evidence you can point to?
    - kylebenzle 6y ago
      Evidence that Tether is a fraud [1] and that BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin censor[2]? Yes, there is endless evidence of both. Funny that the truth about Bitcoin get downvoted so hard here, I thought HN liked to be objective about Crypto. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/160905/tether-cryptocurrency-scam-enrich-bitcoin-investors https://newrepublic.com/article/160905/tether-cryptocurrency... [2] https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisited-58d5b1bdcd64 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisite...
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      This isn't actually controversial for anyone who got interested in bitcoin before Gavin Andreesan was kicked out and /r/bitcoin was taken over and heavily propagandized. https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-histor...
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  Right now the average transaction on the bitcoin chain is almost $15. That's double the cost of the hard drive space to store the entire blockchain (if you really want to). No sane person would build on top of bitcoin or use anything built on top of bitcoin. It was taken over then redesigned to be a disaster and now it is.
  - kylebenzle 6y ago
    You are exactly right. The Bitcoin Core GitHub repo was hijacked years ago by Greg Maxwell's and Adam Back's Blockstream. Until more people understand the history of Bitcoin Core (BTC) they will continue to be confused about the high fees and slow confirmation times. [1] https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisited-58d5b1bdcd64 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisite... edit: looks like you are getting downvoted too for telling the truth about Bitcoin Core.
- wmf 6y ago
  Stacks doesn't inherit Bitcoin's network effects except for mining security. No existing Bitcoin wallets or exchanges can make Stacks transactions, while many Ethereum wallets are flexible enough to support arbitrary tokens or smart contracts.
  - opreturn 6y ago
    > except for mining security where did you see that? I don't think their security model has any connection with Bitcoin mining. They are not merged-mining with bitcoin
    - hanniabu 6y ago
      I believe they're using checkpoints similar to the security service that komodo was offering to other chains.
      - jude- 6y ago
        The system selects one of a set of competing miners to produce the next block via a VRF whose state is recorded to Bitcoin OP_RETURNs. There is at most one Stacks block per Bitcoin block, and the probability of winning is proportional to the relative amount of BTC burnt or transferred. The system's design is well-documented via the SIP process. See https://github.com/stacksgov/sips https://github.com/stacksgov/sips (you'll want to read SIP-001 and SIP-007 in particular).
TekMol 6y ago
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.
- malux85 6y ago
  Oh for the love of science, GIVE IT A REST. ETC exists, if you don’t like ETH go use ETC, the community voted with their wallets, ETH won, give it a bone already
  - gruez 6y ago
    >the community voted with their wallets, ETH won, give it a bone already Isn't this the exact problem? That the blockchain isn't actually immutable and community will step in to revert transactions?
    - doggosphere 6y ago
      If you want to move fast and break things, choose ETH. If you want to move slow and never break things, choose ETC.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      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.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >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?
muneeb 6y ago
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.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  I get you have a product to push, but I think we all know that's not true.

mason55 6y ago

> Turns out it's way easier to port Bitcoin to Ethereum than to rebuild Ethereum on Bitcoin. Technically that might be the case but in the real world you have network effects, inertia, and all kinds of other reason why it might be desirable to go in the other direction. The ease has to be examined from the perspective of the system as a whole and not just the one component.

kylebenzle 6y ago
The Bitcoin Core (BTC) market is pushed forward only by fraud (Tether) and lies (censorship of BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin). The Bitcoin Core project was hijacked and socially engineered away from the lead developers many years ago by Adam Back's Blockstream. Today it is a Ponzi scheme designed to push people onto their "second layer" solutions to "solve" the problems they themselves introduced.
- spicybright 6y ago
  Any hard evidence you can point to?
  - kylebenzle 6y ago
    Evidence that Tether is a fraud [1] and that BitcoinTalk and r/Bitcoin censor[2]? Yes, there is endless evidence of both. Funny that the truth about Bitcoin get downvoted so hard here, I thought HN liked to be objective about Crypto. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/160905/tether-cryptocurrency-scam-enrich-bitcoin-investors https://newrepublic.com/article/160905/tether-cryptocurrency... [2] https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisited-58d5b1bdcd64 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisite...
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    This isn't actually controversial for anyone who got interested in bitcoin before Gavin Andreesan was kicked out and /r/bitcoin was taken over and heavily propagandized. https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-histor...
CyberDildonics 6y ago
Right now the average transaction on the bitcoin chain is almost $15. That's double the cost of the hard drive space to store the entire blockchain (if you really want to). No sane person would build on top of bitcoin or use anything built on top of bitcoin. It was taken over then redesigned to be a disaster and now it is.
- kylebenzle 6y ago
  You are exactly right. The Bitcoin Core GitHub repo was hijacked years ago by Greg Maxwell's and Adam Back's Blockstream. Until more people understand the history of Bitcoin Core (BTC) they will continue to be confused about the high fees and slow confirmation times. [1] https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisited-58d5b1bdcd64 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisite... edit: looks like you are getting downvoted too for telling the truth about Bitcoin Core.
wmf 6y ago
Stacks doesn't inherit Bitcoin's network effects except for mining security. No existing Bitcoin wallets or exchanges can make Stacks transactions, while many Ethereum wallets are flexible enough to support arbitrary tokens or smart contracts.
- opreturn 6y ago
  > except for mining security where did you see that? I don't think their security model has any connection with Bitcoin mining. They are not merged-mining with bitcoin
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    I believe they're using checkpoints similar to the security service that komodo was offering to other chains.
    - jude- 6y ago
      The system selects one of a set of competing miners to produce the next block via a VRF whose state is recorded to Bitcoin OP_RETURNs. There is at most one Stacks block per Bitcoin block, and the probability of winning is proportional to the relative amount of BTC burnt or transferred. The system's design is well-documented via the SIP process. See https://github.com/stacksgov/sips https://github.com/stacksgov/sips (you'll want to read SIP-001 and SIP-007 in particular).

TekMol 6y ago

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.

malux85 6y ago
Oh for the love of science, GIVE IT A REST. ETC exists, if you don’t like ETH go use ETC, the community voted with their wallets, ETH won, give it a bone already
- gruez 6y ago
  >the community voted with their wallets, ETH won, give it a bone already Isn't this the exact problem? That the blockchain isn't actually immutable and community will step in to revert transactions?
  - doggosphere 6y ago
    If you want to move fast and break things, choose ETH. If you want to move slow and never break things, choose ETC.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    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.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >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?

muneeb 6y ago

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.

hanniabu 6y ago
I get you have a product to push, but I think we all know that's not true.