Topic: Bitcoin needs Ethereum VM to reach its full potential — Web3 exec (Read 524 times)

Exactly, it’s still very long and small cryptocurrencies are highly dependent on public opinion. and this moment  if we see BTC ATM trend is not that common yet and if you live in a country that has Bitcoin ATM, this is a great way to earn some bitcoins.

Supply and demand, As demand increases, so does the value of crypto flowing so that its value fluctuations are sometimes wild.

more bad news for lightning network. but i guess people are going to use it or not and they don't pay attention to this type of issues.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-antoine-riard-steps-back-lightning-network-dilemma


“I think this new class of replacement cycling attacks puts lightning in a very perilous position, where only a sustainable fix can happen at the base-layer, e.g adding a memory-intensive history of all-seen transactions or some consensus upgrade. Deployed mitigations are worth something in face of simple attacks, though I don’t think they’re stopping advanced attackers as said in the first full disclosure mail.“

and then this

Riard also noted that addressing the new type of attack may require changes to the underlying Bitcoin network:

“Those types of changes are the ones necessitating the utmost transparency and buy-in of the community as a whole, as we’re altering the full-nodes processing requirements or the security architecture of the decentralized bitcoin ecosystem in its integrality.“



anyone that ever tried to take something simple and turn it into doing something way more complicated than it was originally intended to do knows exactly what this guy is talking about...

Rebalancing existed in 2021 as well, so please explain how it "puts things into prospective".

Give us an example.

What does liquidity have to do with decentralization?

El Salvador's wallet software was custodial. Flawed analogy.

Yet, you have failed giving us an example of "your" superior code that is "anti-corporate" and works completely decentralized (as long as you get to decide everything, of course).

it doesnt work.
when you start to realise that alot of "events" are not goods/services payments. but things like rebalancing ping pong games. it puts things into prospective

when you look at other subnetwork bridges that have more locked liquidity. it puts things into prospective

when you look at the fact that centralised services hold more of the liquidity than indepenedant channel/node users you start to see its not the "decentralised" promise either.

when you see how el salvador was scammed into thinking they were trialing bitcoin, but suckered into using LN and 3 months later el salvador dropped the LN trial to use another method. you start to see how it affected millions of people negatively and gave bitcoin a bad name and bad reputation even when el salvadorians were not even using the bitcoin network

for those that want niche payment services, they dont need to be suckered into LN or ethereumVM's, they can create their own, ones without the bugs, ones not reliant on centralisation of rule controllers, ones that dont cause bottlenecks, one that dont require handing funds over to a centralised custodian.. nor ones causing users to be victims to others rebalance shuffles which then unbalances your channel requiring you to then rebalance to then off balance the trigger man.. repeat..

yep code can do many things,(if you are not sponsored into limiting things to only meet some corporations desires)

obviously its not. but neither is eth or any other crypto coin. they all have a long way to go in my opinion. but bitcoin is probably closest since they have bitcoin ATMs and things like that. some places even take bitcoin for purchases but not too many.

always? everyday? i seriously doubt it. probably not even "most of the time".


if you're talking about LN then how do you reconcile that to stories like this one

Bitcoin Lightning Network Sees 1,212% Growth in Routed Transactions in Two Years, According to BTC Tech Company
https://dailyhodl.com/2023/10/14/bitcoin-lightning-network-sees-1212-growth-in-routed-transactions-in-two-years-according-to-btc-tech-company/

The firm also notes that the Lightning Network is processing at least 47% of Bitcoin’s on-chain transactions on a daily basis.

as i have already pointed out many times, i think LN is vastly over complicated and a mess but i guess it works. but i am not saying i trust it. 

A robust and widespread Bitcoin ecosystem will build in what Ethereum can do with layers on top of Bitcoin. Without Ethereum's endless useless tokens, without their lack of decentralization, without their founder's control over the network, without their less secure chain, etc. Ethereum is a great test tube to show off all the idea people can come up with, and then over the decades builders can integrate those ideas and use cases into layer on Bitcoin without the "token for every app" and movement away from decentralization that Ethereum offers (bugs, not features).

When we go by what has been said here that bitcoin needs ethereum to make some level of achievements, aren't we saying in disguise that bitcoin is not completely solving the financial economy challenges people are having, how will a decentralized network depends on a centralized entity for it existance when everything needed had already been provisioned with bitcoin network, this is just as simple as saying, you have power but you're unaware of what you carry, instead you're seeking for assistance you you should be their courage for help.

There's no "pretending".  You have stated unequivocally on numerous occasions that you think devs shouldn't be allowed to work on the things they choose to work on.  Not your call. 



It is reviewed.  Stop presenting strawmen.



You're either lying or getting me confused with someone else.  Please either provide a direct quote where I have said anything like what you're asserting or withdraw your fallacious remarks.  I'm more than happy for other dev teams to produce other clients.  I fully support the right of anyone to do that.  Personally, I don't see that as a "coup" or "hostile takeover" as others in the community may choose to perceive it. 



Want doesn't get.  These people are human beings.  They don't belong to you.  They don't owe you anything.  They aren't here to serve your every whim.  They're giving you something completely free of charge and yet you're still demanding more.  Ingrate.  If you want something else, go ahead and make it.  No one is stopping you.  But the simple fact is, you can't do what they do.  That's your problem.  Don't blame devs because you're inept and useless.

core devs job is to maintain the bitcoin protocol. however they should not OWN IT. they should instead listen to the community.. and develop things that make bitcoin more useful for the general populous, not just their sponsored commissioners

you thinking i am the only one that wants core devs to do things is YOUR FAILURE.
you want no one to request features. you want core devs to be the authoritarian dictating totalitarians which no one should question or criticise.

the reality is core devs SHOULD be reviewed, criticised and should listen to the populous.

you also dont want other groups to offer other methods to upgrade the protocol or offer a different subnetwork that competes against your centralist design preferences

YOU are the one that does not do coding. you are just a sock puppet hoping a core dev will put their hand up inside you and tickle you as a reward for defending their actions.

it is funny how you pretend i am the totalitarian when its YOU that want bitcoin core devs to be totalitarian
grow up, and realise your favoured subnetwork is not the solution and core devs that are subnetwork motivated should try making a subnetwork that meets bitcoiners needs
if after 6 years of promoting a broken crap subnetwork, you have not been given some compensation or reward for your ass kissing, its time you realise you are a slave to a broken system

its time to start afresh and ass kiss your influencers to make something you can be proud of promoting without you having to lie

---

edit

responding to below
i have suggested that when core devs do things that dont benefit the general populous and only benefit centralists, that they should try something else.. if he thinks im a "controller", thats a failure of HIS understanding of who controls what
 

doomad thinking no one should have an opinion, by thinking im the only one left not afraid to speak my mind to be the "last man standing" is a failure on his part... then he wants to pretend there must be some set credentials needed to even dare have an opinion about core dev centralist roadmap.. is a failure on his part of understanding humans ability to have opinions

his belief, where anyone who wants something should f**k off to another network and do their own thing, and never question wanting better things for bitcoin itself, is a failure on his part of what decentralisation is all about.. bitcoins only option is NOT start a new network and leave core devs to just do as they centrally please

speaking my mind is not entitlement, its freedom. his desire to suppress it and beg me to remove my opinions is him acting like a totalitarian. if his memory only lasts a few months to keep forgetting how i point out your adorations of REKT campaigns, thats your own fault for forgetting how you dont like competing dev teams wanting to progress he protocol. you cant use memory loss as an excuse to pretend your innocent, .. this forum keeps records of posts

his thinking that to even have a opinion, to even scrutinise, or make comments about a dev team requires needing to own them.. is a failure on his part.
him thinking it requires me to own them to even dare ask them anything, is a failure on his part.
him thinking because i dont own them i have no right to make requests or suggestions or have opinions is a failure on his part

as for his adoration of saying corporations should be free to ask devs to make changes but users should not. is perfect evidence of his totalitarian centralist ideals

But whoever that might be, you'd still be trying to tell them what they can and can't code.  And that's despite the fact that you can't code yourself.  Entitled man-child is entitled.  Thinks devs are his to direct as he wishes.  Maybe one day he'll realise he's a worthless nobody and no one likes his totalitarian concept of how Bitcoin should work.

The guy is a Web3 exec, so of course he is going to say something like that. Doesn't make it true. Probably saying it because Web3 ecosystem needs Bitcoin's strength to rejuvenate the space and give it some integrity but as a Web3 exec he can't say that so instead he spins it to say Bitcoin needs Web3.

there are other coins totally different market wiggle pattern to bitcoin. but things like ethereum shadow bitcoin movements too often to be just a coincidence.

take for instance bitcoins halving cycles and bitcoins mining contracts that cause a noticable patter each cycle on the market..
ethereum does not have the same mining practices or halving cycles or other crap.. but ethereum ATH the same time as bitcoin. meaning its just a sheep not its own market

counting addresses/accounts is meaningless.. stats do not mean 1 address=1 user
yes ethreum has more community than say doge coin of algerand or solena or any other promoted crap coins heard about. but ethereums community is not as large as bitcoins.. by this i mean in regards of utility sentiment to create their own market speculation

celebrities were not buying.. they were GIVEN an nft and also a lump of money to promote NFT's..
lets use another example
do you think the influencers of FTX invested in FTX or got paid to promote and say they invest and trusted FTX
when you learn that influencers promote things they dont even buy into themselves, you will learn to not be phased by influencers


i agree.. better decentralised bitcoin based subnetwork bridges.. the current line-up just remind me of ICO scams and altcoin crap


because no one wants ETH on bitcoin.. because no one really likes eth to want to expand eths presence in the bitcoin realm

again all this promotion of ethereum EVM's are done by the ETHEREUM promoters trying to get bitcoiners to join THEM. bitcoiners want bitcoin things and are peed off with bitcoin devs wasting YEARS on nonsense broke promise networks instead of making bitcoin more user friendly

saying "bitcoin needs ethereum EVM" is a simple translation of bitcoiners need to leave bitcoin and put their wealth into ethereum
now who would benefit most from making bitcoiners leave bitcoin and use a totally different mainnet+subnet system

..

in short and to get to the point.
bitcoin does not need to move people into the ethereum community via a EVM
bitcoin devs can drop their silly progression of LN and start afresh making a better bitcoin subnetwork that does equal and more then EVM does
because code can do many things.. with the right people coding it

i don't know why crypto prices all rise and fall together. it's not just btc and eth, its everything else too but i always thought eth had a very large community. take a look:

https://ethereumworldnews.com/ethereum-surpasses-bitcoin-in-number-of-active-addresses/
 
that was a long time ago but has things really changed since then or maybe you don't believe the story is accurate.


well when we had the nft bandwagon and every known celebrity was plunking down hundreds of thousands of dollars in eth to buy a monkey i'm pretty sure they didn't care about bitcoin at all. maybe those people are now disillusioned about crypto because their nft devalued alot though. so maybe the bitcoin community is more steadfast and sticks around through the high and low times more than the eth community does.

i don't know. i just know that WBTC is not a very good thing. there should be a decentralized alternative.

you never hear about wrapped eth on bitcoin. does such a thing even exist? i seriously doubt it. so that must mean that people using bitcoin want to use eth more than the other way around. not saying all of them do but maybe some of them do.

you do realise that bitcoin has its own community. and own market sentiment.
however if ethereum had its own larger community with its own market sentiment then ethereum would not shadow trace bitcoins price(90%+) of the time. because ethereum users would be doing other things with ether and choosing a different path/sentiment of demand..(different ups and downs on the market)

when you see ethereum basically just shadow traces the bitcoin market at a 1:14-1:19 ratio. it shows there is not an abundance of ethereum users making their own independent market decisions


so i do find it strange when you say it requires moving people away from bitcoin to use an ethereum based thing, will make bitcoin more popular..

because ethereums community is not as big as you think.. ethereums community and niche is hyped up. even its market is propelled only due to bitcoin.. not the other way round

its ethereum that wants a better bridge to bitcoin. not bitcoin needing a better bridge to ethereum

there can be bitcoin subnetworks (not the current hyped ones) in the future that are feature rich and meet the promises and needs of niche utility of thing like web3. but trying to pretend we need to pass bitcoiners over to ethereum mainnet fund control is a laugh,

i dont know. someone must need ethereum otherwise they wouldn't have wrapped bitcoin. but if this is true then maybe we do need an alternative:

Schroé believes the current solutions involving wrapped Bitcoin on Ethereum and other EVM-compatible chains are problematic and argues they are susceptible to censorship and regulatory scrutiny, as they’re operated by the centralized United States-based company BitGo.

but if they can't connect to ethereum, isn't that what people want is cross chain communication? if it's just in its own little world i don't know if it can be enough.

Schroé’s Botanix Labs aims to connect the Bitcoin and Ethereum ecosystems through its “Spiderchain” — a proof-of-stake layer 2 that implements EVM to EVM bridges to enable Bitcoin to interact with the EVM.

if bitcoin could be connected to ethereum more people would be using bitcoin i think. but i don't think the author of this article understood what spiderchain is. i don't think it is connecting anything. but i could be wrong. i'm just not sure.

That's not going to happen because we don't need Ethereum.

On the other hand, we can devise a way to make smart contracts just fine without it. The only hold-up is how are we going to do this in a fast, secure and decentralized way. Though I'm pretty sure the decentralized part is pretty much guaranteed when you are extending Bitcoin's script system.

When ZK-proofs are finally used for network validation, perhaps a small sigops limit for scripts can be introduced along with some new opcodes for which this limit applies to, to remove some of the constraints of making a smart contract directly on Bitcoin, without using a federation of nodes like LN or Liquid. Enough space on the blockchain will be freed for nodes to store such data.

well, as i had already said that LN does seem way overly complicated to such an extent that every so often you hear about some new vulnerability or bug or whatever you want to call it. Prime example from recently:


https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-October/021999.html

A lightning node allows HTLCs forwarding (in bolt3's parlance accepted HTLC
on incoming link and offered HTLC on outgoing link) should settle the
outgoing state with either a success or timeout before the incoming state
timelock becomes final and an asymmetric defavorable settlement might
happen (cf "Flood & Loot: A Systematic Attack on The Lightning Network"
section 2.3 for a classical exposition of this lightning security property).

Failure to satisfy this settlement requirement exposes a forwarding hop to
a loss of fund risk where the offered HTLC is spent by the outgoing link
counterparty's HTLC-preimage and the accepted HTLC is spent by the incoming
link counterparty's HTLC-timeout.

I may not be smart enough to understand the problem but i'm smart enough to know that it has some serious design issues if stuff like this keeps popping up. Bitcoin was just not meant for something like the lightning network. it doesn't have the functionality to allow off chain transactions i guess. trying to force those opens up all these issues. that just keep popping up. presumably they are only theoretical but still. it's ugly!

hopefully these things like bip-300 and this spiderchain will be much more elegant and maybe they would offer something similar to LN but without all the complicated setup and things.


i mean i wish bitcoin fees could always be $0.05 for on-chain transactions. then i might find a use for it. but not if its going to cost $5. that's just me in my own opinion/situation/wishes. others could have their own.

look at who invented ordinals and the projects he adores
look at the 5k liquidity and see that majority of it is locked into centralised services of channels that have been open for years.. usually independant people would regularly close channels and do other things where they have full control of their signing authority of the funds. yet most of the network is the idiots that are renting inbound balance of a channel that does not even give them signing authority(privatekey access)
and again look at who adores bitcoin fee rise(no one should) but for those that like large fees, look at the projects they adore

there are alot more then just 3 subnetwork bridges to bitcoin and many do things differently to how a certain subnetwork functions but have more liquidity than that certain subnetwork
however certain devs and theyre acolytes only promote a certain subnetwork which is why it "SEEMS" popular in discussion, even though in utility it is not. these certain devs were sponsored to make changes to code(pushing bait and switch features/annoyances) to push a certain subnetwork as the solution. they are handcuffed to an allegiance to a certain network due to the sponsorships.
but after 6 years its time to escape those handcuffs and maybe try something different. they need to get back to work on features that benefit bitcoin not the subnetwork
they already admit that certain flaws exist they cant bug fix, and instead are doing work arounds of needing centralised services.. so its not really meeting the fit for purpose promise they made 6 years ago..


once you start analysing and researching beyond the utopian fluffy promotions, you start to see alot more than just flaws, baiting and corruption

the reason some think that a ethereum backed subnetwork bridge to bitcoin is the only way is because the bitcoin dev group are soo entranced into pushing forward only certain subnetwork that they forgot to care about community needs and just sold their souls out to their sponsors. which is where this 6 years of headaches are happening. people are losing trust of core devs baited empty promises and think other outsider teams are needed to provide the features needed offchain
back in 2015-16 bitcoin community were looking for ways to keep fee's onchain under $0.05... the core roadmap of promises told the community the code changes would provide that.. well look at the fee's 2017+
also there is 4x more data allowance (something certain group objected to even 2mb of full utility) yet even with 4mb of bloat there is not 4x of tx count. nor are transaction leaner. the transactions are fatter then 2009-2016

it's like a computer that sits on the blockchain running different computer programs that people want it to run. now the thing is, if it fails when executing the code, in ethereum's case it consumes the transaction fee you paid (called gas). i hope with bitcoin it won't do that! to me that's kind of a scam when something steals your money but doesn't complete the transaction. and then you have to pay again/try again...

who is? ethereum is very complicated. way more complicated than bitcoin.

is that what really happens?  

i get that. but it happened because of ordinals.

well not to turn this into a discussion about LN but if it really is defective you would think that all these other layer 2 projects would come up with something better. but i guess they're not working on that...but to me that's seems like a very important thing to work on. making transactions easier and cheaper. without involvng any 3rd party or chance of fraud.

sounds like a classic bait and switch has that happened to people like at first their LN fee was only a satoshi and then it jumped to a million satoshis?  
 

tiny and free ones are the hubs/leasing imbound balance channels of lite wallets,, think ofit as a trial promotion to sucker people in and then raise fees later


here is the thing though. bitcoin onchain fee's do not need to be high. the transactions per block onchain do not need to be low.. but when you look at these certain people that are promoting and adoring and defending defective subnetworks.. those same people are pushing a mantra that onchain fees need to be high and transactions per block need to be low, they also promote that no one should do anything about the spam meme bloat data that has nothing to do with bitcoin value transfer onchain.

the reason.
a. if they can make bitcoin onchain fees stupidly high, they can charge more offchain and people still call it a "discount"
(same bait and switch before, make legacy x4 to call segwit "discounted". even thought segwit fees were higher $ cost than legacy pre segwit activation)

b. if they can annoy bitcoiners to hate bitcoin and tell them the only solution is to f**k off to another network if not happy, instead of suggesting an onchain fix. they can sucker idiots into their favoured network and initially promote low fees on first few payments to lock them into trusting the channel and getting a few channel states in their favour then update settings of channel to increase fee's and only allow idiots to close channel when they have raided you of your value(many ways to achieve this, and shown to be done alot)