Topic: De-Fi on Bitcoin (Read 488 times)

One thing for sure is that Bitcoin is not good for everything. It works great as a store of value, but it's terrible as "digital cash" for day-to-day payments. The contrary happens with Ethereum. It's best to leave the Bitcoin network as is in order to ensure its decentralization, security, and reliability. Making it more complex, will only make matters worse in the long run. Imagine if Bitcoin was an AIO (All-in-One) blockchain network capable of handling anything in its path. It would bring many unnecessary security risks in the long run. It's best to keep it simple, while letting alternative blockchain networks serve their unique purpose in the mainstream world.

For now, "De-Fi" on Bitcoin remains as an experiment. With ETH's rising popularity, I doubt people will adopt Bitcoin for "De-Fi" in the future. Sidechains providing smart contract features for Bitcoin will only remain as an alternative than a replacement to Ethereum. I don't mind about this, as long as, both projects work together (BTC and ETH) in order to make crypto land a better place. The wide variety of cryptocurrencies to choose from, gives people a choice to select from one coin to another depending on their daily needs. Ethereum will always be the "King of De-Fi" because of the many dApps built on it over the years. The world's second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap has a lot of developers and individuals supporting it, becoming a place of attraction for new "De-Fi" projects. Even with competing smart contract platforms (like TRON, EOS, and Cardano), Ethereum has remained as the leading platform for "De-Fi". Bitcoin is better suited as a store of value than anything else. Time will tell us what Bitcoin's use cases will be as the network maintains active development and innovation. Just my thoughts

I don't see a need for Bitcoin to get directly involved in DeFi. Keep Bitcoin simple. Bitcoin is digital gold. People understand that, it's simple. There isn't a reason to try to branch it out so that it encompasses all use cases of crypto. Side chains and wrapped-Bitcoin and whatnot are fine for connecting people's Bitcoin to smart contracts if they want, but there is no need to directly include smart contract capabilities, and therefore DeFi, on Bitcoin itself.

DeFi I think is looking to become the killer app of smart contracts, or at least the first lasting killer app, if it does in fact continue to grow long term. At the very least it doesn't look like it is going to fade away like previous ideas of what Ethereum would be (a decentralized web, a funding platform). It is perfectly fine for DeFi to stay just on Ethereum and be Ethereum's killer app, and have other smart contract platforms also have niche spaces in DeFi as well. Bitcoin doesn't need to enter this.

Besides, because Bitcoin is established money, becoming digital gold, it needs to stay conservative in what it does. It holds so much value and is so critical to the entire crypto space that you don't want to be making drastic changes to it, like changing a major focus to smart contracts. Future updates to Bitcoin are good, but they need to focus on transaction capacity, security, usability - things that you want in digital gold. Let stablecoins be the daily spendable cryptos, let Ethereum (and others) focus on building smart contract ecosystems and developing use cases like DeFi, let certain other coins occupy their own spaces for specific use cases, and let Bitcoin be digital gold and a global reserve currency / store of value.

don't know if there are many but I know one.


there is a Defi project on Bitcoin. it is called Sovryn check it here: sovryn.app it uses RSK smart chain for the platform.. I have read about that in a  Cointelegraph article recently. that is a new project. but I think it's a good start of Defi on Bitcoin

Since I invested in some defi, I think bitcoin price will not affect the operations of it  nor the hype of it, most of the De-Fi projects now are turning into scam, much even now because eth is nearly 1kusd since most of the are eth based token,  I don't know if there will be a defi project that we use bitcoin as their blockchain contract, because of the fees, and also some of them offers farming and staking. So if they will gonna use btc instead of eth, I think it is much more expensive.

I have never really envisage the idea of building dApps, building Defi projects on the bitcoin chain but is never something we can actually criticize when we are yet to experience the processes and test how it might feel and look on the bitcoin data. I believe strongly like everyone else the real goal of Defi has not been implemented by the designers yet, it is a nice financing with a handful of scam running through the whole process.

You are absolutely correct. Adding more to your point, DeFi is just a buzz word which many have used to create the same solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
Even if it does, what's the use if many coins are solving the same solution ? This is why most of the DeFi tokens don't even have any value these days.

For OP, DeFi is already there and it does not need to provide the same services on a different network. It won't change anything but just create another buzz in the market with no actual value.

Indeed.  If everyone who was genuinely interested in DeFi were pooling their talent and resources into one unified project, it might have some credibility.  But instead, everyone is out there just trying to exploit the situation for profit and it looks totally squalid and shameful.  I suspect it's going to remain a filth pit until the next bandwagon departs.

I agree with this, but I also want to add that I used to think the same of ICOs. The idea of crowdfunding a project by giving people an option to buy the tokens of a certain project that are meant to function on this platform is not a bad idea per se. And there've been ICOs promising exciting things like fighting counterfeit clothing, helping bees not to get infected with something by tracing the infected ones on a blockchain, playing mobile games and mining some coins this way and many others. But in the end most projects didn't make it, people lost billions of dollars to scammers, and we have a market full of worthless altcoins. DeFi sounds like the new ICO to me. The idea is not bad, but in reality it ends with big failures and exit scams.

This is another set of hard-nosed, uninformed diatribe about how everyone knows what Bitcoin developers have time for or not. As i said earlier, scams are nothing new to this space. To be fair, its the bitcoiners that have scammed the most people. It all started with bitcoin, right?? It was the devs on bitcoin that decided to start the whole experiments of colored coins, smart contract (there is a whole language they have come up with that is supposedly a possibility to implement smart contracts). Bitcoin devs are not god sends who can just deliver and capture the market whatever way they want.

Of course there is no comparison between the security of bitcoin and ethereum. That battle is half lost as soon as you go on a turing complete platform. This does not mean that the concept of smart contract has failed. Why must we repeat verbatim that it has failed. You may well know that even bitcoin developers have made attempts to become more friendly to contracting abilities.

Again, this thread is not about Ethereum failing or Ethereum being replaced. It is about smart contracting on DeFi. Whether its desirable and whether the whole space will be better served if the kind of platforms opening up on Ethereum were to use the security of Bitcoin instead.

SCAM ALERT
The project is closed source. Gave itself 49% of the pre-mine in the name of "foundation". Needs an investment of 1 Million USD for you to make a masternode and start "earning" their token. This screams scam.

Most such projects try to throw an air of importance with exclusivity. They will also tell you that you can "delegate" and earn if you don't want to invest in a masternode. The "masternodes" are all owned by the project itself. Smaller retail buyers buy their coins to "delegate". They pay exchanges to get listed and then milk the smaller buyers who get attracted in the name of "staking" rewards.

My advice is to not follow any such projects coming up that have a premine or the typical 2-week token generation event when only the founders and their close cousins know about it. They later claim to have done a "fair launch" and newbies jump in to buy on DEXes. Classic SCAM. This is exactly the reason that people are so opposed to even hearing the name DeFi.

RSK is right, it should be OpFi for Open Finance.

If there is no Defi is bitcoin, then bitcoin will become a digital gold and there is nothing wrong in it too. Its too early to say if people will like this idea of De-Fi on bitcoin as in the past we have seen people rejected any development on top of bitcoin blockchain.
I am following this project DeFiChain (https://defichain.com/) because this will determine if this will be successfully implemented.

DeFi in Bitcoin. Why not? I think it is a good idea. We need developers to build user friendly dapps in order to handle our Bitcoin. Now that there is more investment in Bitcoin, the time is right to experience decentralized finance.

As we overcome the pandemic we need financial tools for entrepreneurship. Man's work is the best source for the reestablishment of the economy and finance is a key element.

This is probably not to place to argue over ETH but it must be said that Tron overtaking ETH is like as far as pluto is from Earth. That most likely will not happen. Eth has so many more developers and traction than tron.

anyways, exciting times ahead for btc.

Gotcha, No, I haven't tried them all, but I have tried most of them. I suggested people should develop defi on btc because it would make it more attractive than what it currently already is. It's okay if btc stays the course, so long as improving doesn't stop because or else the threat of losing their lead may become real. I still think all other projects are light years away but one doesn't have to grow complacent.

Anyways I hope more devs join in !! I am slowly learning some code. But still far from contributing significant code, although I hope I get their soon.

Nope, don't think Bitcoin developers are interested in those bullshit as that's what they're. Bitcoin is the best defi project you can see in the space, why then do it have to give opportunity to project that won't have been able to stand on their own to used the influence of bitcoin to hyped themselves and probably scam millions off the market.

Bitcoin can't start competing with ethereum to be the head of a concepts that has failed. Bitcoin has never been hacked successfully, the only exploit that happened years back when the network was still new was handled perfect without any lose been recorded unlike the uncountable hacked occuring almost monthly on the defi platforms.

Some platforms even gets exploited more than ones. If ethereum fails which the fees are already showing, we have others blockchain that'll step up to replace ethereum like tron etc.

High confirmation time is necessity in the case of sidechain. The Bitcoin blockchain/network may undergo some kind of change or reorganization. Since, sidechain is entirely dependent upon Bitcoin, it may fail during such event. So, it is necessary that sidechain has the heads up of atleast a day or two.

And yeah, there are already wallets and platforms providing service to swap RBTC. So, instead of pegging-in BTC to RSK network, one can simply use wallets like Defiant which provides internal swap options. You can buy RBTC with BTC or vice-versa instantly. Here are the options available to do so- https://www.rsk.co/openfinance/

its already posted above , its posible for btc to have a defi but the process may not be as easy as eth defi , this can also be the reason why they didnt bother to experiment and create one  because if there are , they already announce it before during the hype of defi begins . btc is already doing well and we dont want that to disrupt that by introducing new features that could gone wrong . we know defi and if you want defi there are many of them on the eth platform , arent you contented on them ? dont tell me you already tried them all

Thanks for the great info. So the PowPeg protocol  is using some sort of hardware to enable a trustless (as in not trusting a human) bridge. Thanks for this update. The hardware device referred as PowHSM is run in conjunction with a special type of Full node.
 
The issue mostly pointed out about this is the finality time needed for the Peg-in and Peg-outs. What are your thoughts on this @webtricks? For example, If a trader moves funds to the RSK sidechain, he needs to wait 200 blocks to confirm it on the sidechain. Though, just like the wrapped BTCs, if a platform of trading develops on the other side, traders will find it easy enough to buy, sell and use BTC on the sidechain. Irrespective of when they have been ported.

RSK is pretty much like Ethereum blockchain as far as use-case is concerned. You can create complex transactions, write smart contracts, lend or borrow like DeFi dapps, etc. In-fact, smart contracts are written in Solidity only just like Ethereum chain.

The major difference which makes RSK different from Ethereum or other blockchains is the way network security is maintained and how it is linked to Bitcoin. RSK secures its blockchain with merge mining which means Bitcoin miners can include the merkle root of RSK transactions while mining and use the same computational power for RSK as well. Since, the difficulty level is lower for RSK network, Bitcoin miners can quickly find block solution for RSK so new RSK blocks can be created quickly than Bitcoin blocks which means more scalability, more transactions and less fees.

In order to move bitcoins to RSK network, an independently executable smart contract known as Bridge Contract is used. A user sends bitcoin to multi-sig address. The private keys of the multi-sig address (better known as Bitcoin PowPeg Vault on RSK) are stored in special-purpose microcontrollers (inside PowHSM device) which virtually makes it impossible for any party to know them. On top of that, PowHSM device is included with SPV node. So when user sends fund to mutli-sig address, bridge contract builds the RSK transaction with equivalent RBTC, then sends the unsigned transaction to PowHSM devices. Next, the SPV node of the PowHSM independently verifies whether enough confirmation has taken place, if yes then independently signs the transaction using private key, sends the signatures to Bridge Contract which accumulates all signatures from different PowHSMs and create the final signed transaction, broadcast it and user gets the equivalent RBTC on his RSK address. Withdrawing the funds (known as peg-out) works the same way in opposite manner.

Since, 90% of the Bitcoin miners today are doing merge mining, out of which 60%+ are doing for RSK so it is safe to assume that RSK sidechain is securer than altcoin blockchains. Morever, in-built SPV node and tamper-proof micro-controllers make functionaries of RSK superior to other sidechains. So, on whole we can say RSK is one of the best alternative available today for smart contract creation.

RSK is still in development phase. The process of peg-in and peg-out which I explained couple of paragraph above is known as PowerPeg protocol which is only-recently introduced. Earlier it was using centralized custody of funds by multi-parties on Bitcoin side. That maybe the reason, RSK doesn't have wide acceptability like Ethereum yet.

as time goes by, i'm less interested in trying to have bitcoin integrate every possible feature and use case, including complex smart contracts. that encourages massive blockchain bloat (just look at ethereum!) which in turn will threaten bitcoin's primary use case as decentralized money. and that's really what matters---retaining the decentralization and consensus that underlies bitcoin's monetary properties.

i don't care about driving de-fi hype to bitcoin. bitcoin is clearly going to the moon no matter what.


can anyone give me the tl:dr on what RSK can do (or not do), and why nobody uses it? i remember it was the talk of the town a few years ago.

I think the question is more one of priorities than it is about funding.  Regardless of how centralised or not you feel development has become, I still believe the decisions would be made based on what provides the greater benefit for the network as a whole.  It's possible I'm being naive, but I think more people overall will benefit from things like privacy and scaling enhancements than they would from smart contracts.  Throwing money at smart contracts wouldn't suddenly make them more useful to the average person.