Topic: Can BTC with TARO turn it into a Smart Contract Platform? (Read 216 times)

anyone can make contracts.. but if those contracts are not audited by a wide decentralised network preventing cases where middleman or individual software update can play around with the details.. then its not a good contract network

smart contracts have been around before 2009.. but blockchains(bitcoin) was the first to solve the network wide audit part

but now see the flaws of certain networks which dont have the contracts being audited by the entire network(decentralised blockchain). and you start to see the flaws of those networks (hint hint)

Until someone invents the concept of "professional smart contract" which is similar to professionally-written code in that it won't explode in your face, anybody that writes a smart contract will most likely leave a bug in it, which is the exploited, and tarnishes the coin the smart contract is written on.

So the problems related to smart contract vulnerabilities are not technlogical problems, they are people problems - akin to using weak passwords. BTC can do without additional scorn.

It depends on what you mean by "smart contract platform". Ever since the first bitcoin transaction in 2009 we have been using "smart contracts" in each and every one of our transactions. But bitcoin is a currency or a payment network so all its smart contracts aim to solve what a payment network needs.

On the other hand shitcoins like ethereum are created to provide a very easy way to create useless shitcoins (aka tokens) in the shortest time which is why their implementation of smart contract is a copy of bitcoin's with additional stuff enabling the scammers to create thousands of useless shittokens.
This will never happen in bitcoin. Others will continue creating sidechains and other projects on top of bitcoin though, to mimic useless platforms like ethereum. In fact this uselessness is the reason why old projects like RSK haven't gained any popularity whatsoever.

I must have misheard it from those guys talking about it. It was a heavy information for me thinking how it could end other smart contract projects.
But will there be a possibility that an update making BTC a layer1?

I can see RSK have this feature for BTC but it close to Wrap BTC (wBTC). Not sure if this will contribute to making the price higher due to more demands.

That will require a big upgrade to something more advanced than the current system... possibly a brand new Multi-chain Network becoming part of the Bitcoin Network

Right, so technically, Bitcoin already can use smart contracts, and RSK yes, I mean I've even used Bitcoin-based/secured DEX like Counterparty (even got some satoshi dust on various Counterparty wallets still).

But RSK really disappointed me -- in 2016/17 already I remember Bitcoin escrows being talked about (seriously, that's still the one big use case I  think should really be available today) and no workable consumer buwaytress-friendly version ever arrived (show me if I'm wrong, happy to be proven wrong!).

taproot requires co-operative signing.
cooperative signing means both sides are not trying to mess with the other person.
if your not trying to mess with the other person. then you can atomic swao easily without taproot.

the thing with taproot/musig2. is that it requires the code to not allow a party to unintentionally/misleadingly 'double sign' (code malicious people can push people to download their variant software to be part of their collective group of other features needed by the group(which can be mis-used))

so taproot is not the 'solution' its again just a feature to make things easy for those that opt in and trust their new group partners to be honourable. taproot doesnt solve it for native/legacy users, and taproot is not abuse proof.

people need to really learn lessons of recent events of altnets/sidechains when it comes to the reserves/pegs and tokens and what happens and what is enforced outside of the bitcoin blockchain. dont just trust what you see as being fool proof.

taproot "could" offer the collaborative signing to allow federated coin reserve control in a group to allow a more trusted peg from bitcoin than before. but it can also allow the opposite if not reviewed/audited by good people

Given the sheer volume of scammy pump'n'dump bullshit smart contracts seem to encourage, I'm almost inclined to say Bitcoin was better off without it.  Literally the only good thing about Ethereum is that it siphons off most of that worthless, toxic NFT garbage so we don't have to deal with it.  I can only hope the masses get all that nonsense out of their systems before too many people start to build the same wretched shit in Bitcoin.  But that's almost certainly a hope in vain.

It's a shame that genuine use-cases are invariably drowned out by masses of useless crap.  It seems the primary function of Smart Contracts will continue to be "abuse by shameless hucksters".

Taproot can help to make multisig transactions to remain indistinguishable, this happen with the help of Schnorr signature in a way keys are aggregated into a single key which is require for spending. This will make multisig transactions to be very cheaper in transaction fee as even 15-of-15 multisig transactions will be like a single pubkey transaction.

Taproot can also have benefit in lightning network in a way if two people that open a channel wants to closer the channel that was opened, they can both join their signature to produce just one which can be used to close the channel with also cheaper fee and indistinguishably, closing of the channel will also look like a single pubkey payment.

Taproot makes atomic swap possible, possible with the help of Adaptive signature.

But as for smart contract like that used for ERC20 and others like TRC20 and Solana, that is not included in Taproot. franky1 is right.

your right taproot is not about making smart contract possible. other networks can make any rules they like..
and just use a normal bitcoin lock as the peg/initiator..

its sole purpose is to hide how many signers/scripts are involved in a transaction.. but its only benefit is if there are times where there is a bloated number of signers already in a group(multisig). and is only a benefit if those number of signers had agreed to move funds into a taproot first(extra tx needed to migrate into) to then use a less bloated tx on the way out.
it does not benefit those currently in legacy/native utxo's or old version multisig just wanting to pay other legacy/native address holders.

here is a hint.
even if all of your funds are in taproot addresses. does not mean each transaction you make where your inputs(utxos) are all taproot utxo's will always only have 1 signature.

because if EACH multisig(taproot) address is a DIFFERENT "trust group" then each address will have a different signing secret.  meaning each address still ends up with 1 sig per "trust group" address.

taproot only works if all funds are in one signing group. where they all sign towards one signature. meaning you need to enter into a group to have a less bloaty tx on the exit of the group

Taproot does not result in integration of smart contract on Bitcoin network. It does not create anything similar to smart contract. It is what people hope and speculate but the main benefits of Taproot are:

• Improve scalability
• Higher capacity to handle transactions: higher TPS
• Reduce transaction fee
• Fungibility
• Script innovation

• What is Taproot and how it will benefit Bitcoin
• Taproot and Schnorr: The Biggest BTC Upgrade for 2021

We have been enjoying cheaper fee rates on Bitcoin network after the wider adoption of Segwit, and in latest months Taproot.

bitcoin has the ability now to "lock up" coin right now. no issue
and any network can set up code to read that lock reference, as a trigger to peg/initiate/release their own token and have their own ruleset.

meaning bitcoin can be a reserve and allowing many altnets/sidechains to bridge/peg to it..
bitcoin has no technical issue with not being able to do what ethereum does..

the issues are on the sidechain/altnet side. having the integrity and the ruleset to manage the value they hold/introduce.

---

now my usual rant: (ignore if not interested in the flaws of sidechains, altnets and other networks that offer niche utility)

smart contracts are not new. infact they were available pre 2009..
cypherpunks were playing around with them for years. but they are full of holes and issues. especially on networks with no byzantine generals solution, no consensus no network wide audit

blockchains solved those issues to stop thefts, or secret signing that the other parties are unaware of within the bitcoin network (not saying thefts dont happen on exchange mysql databases or altnet/sidechains tokens/contracts that are bridged to bitcoin or private party misleading multisig utility).

but the problem is not that bitcoin cant do what ethereum does as a reserve for altnets to bridge to.. its that the altnets are the problem of not having the same security as a blockchain..

as for features of what some altnets want to see...
things like taproot and musig do add privacy.. but ill emphasise this ONLY TO COOPERATIVE TRUSTED PARTIES/GROUPS
.. if an altnet does not have consensus/network auditing. then many bad malicious people can do numerous things and ruin the integrity of the sidechains/altnets pegged to a blockchain

take the taproot/musig2

by the users and the auditors not knowing how many people were in a party. and no hard code rule network wide to prevent one person multisigning..

it would be far far easy for someone to (in laymans words) set up a 2-of 3 multisig.. but tell the other person its a 2-of-2. making them trust they have 50% sign power and the other cant do anything about it without them.. however reality is the initiator can have 2 keys and sign without the victim

this is old school stuff way before 2009. smart contracts and privacy have their flaws.

I think rsk is already providing similar service.  "RSK’s adds value and functionality to the bitcoin ecosystem by enabling smart-contracts, near instant payments, and higher-scalability".
So far they have not been able to attract many projects developers to use the network. If this is the same thing you hoping to happen with Taro why do you think they will be successful?

The podcast I was listening I think was discussing about this taproot update which this could turn Bitcoin a sort of a competitor of ETH like a smart contract platform. Because I am also foreseeing the price to explode way bigger than $100K that we expect. I'm however skeptic with what I have heard as it was a random spotify channel.

The investment we have with other smart contract projects like the BNB, Matic or ADA could be pointless in the end because this is going to kill them when we can all do send stablecoin and tokens with Taproot update in Bitcoin. Is there any truth to this?