3 ms·
Beyond requiring intrusive changes to Bitcoin like header commitments, and still needing dozen-KB scripts for pegs, it also limits properties of the sidechain.
by tromp 3y ago
Beyond requiring intrusive changes to Bitcoin like header commitments, and still needing dozen-KB scripts for pegs, it also limits properties of the sidechain. For instance, if the latter wants to use a memory-hard PoW like Cuckoo Cycle, I don't see how Bitcoin script (which cannot even loop) could verify a cycle in a pseudorandom graph.
- adastra22 3y agoI could argue that there’s no reason for any proof of work other than sha256 as these side chains should be merge mining, but we’re way off in a tangent thread. The point is that smart contracts actually do something other than “authorize payment”, and fancy Schnorr signing modes don’t come close to replicating those capabilities. And so long as there is a need for a programmable verification architecture, Forth-like languages are prttty ideal.