Topic: Do you think it's a good idea if BTC has smart contract capability? (Read 178 times)

Not just sluggish, bitcoin technology will have to be changed fundamentally as most smart contracts are pretty intensive in terms of computational power and integration of those complexity to the current simple technology that is bitcoin will have underlying effects. And adding smart contracts will introduce new kinds of vulnerabilities in the security of bitcoin. Plus, there's just a big difference in what we think bitcoin is and what they think bitcoin should be, a lot of us believe that bitcoin should be as it is and the only thing that we should add to it is something that has little to no downside but huge upside. And smart contracts on bitcoin will only help other networks that have smart contracts so they have less burden on their networks, I'm sure that when bitcoin has smart contracts, a lot of projects will definitely try to get in.

1.Almost every cryptocurrency exchange and cryptocurrency casino that uses Bitcoin is centralized. What do you mean about smart contracts making Bitcoin more centralized? The BTC blockchain is decentralized by design, but the third parties, who use Bitcoin as a payment method are mostly centralized.

2.Meme coins and shitcoins have little to do with smart contracts.

3.AFAIK, you can create smart contracts on the BTC blockchain and I don't see any chaos.

4.Ethereum had smart contracts for years. Did  smart contracts make Ethereum bigger and better in comparison to Bitcoin? NOPE!

In summary, you are overreacting and searching for a problem where there isn't such a problem. Bitcoin is just fine with or without smart contracts.

I agree. But it can't be denied that bridge gaining it's popularity since people prefer not using exchange for various reason (such as minimum confirmation amount or high fee), without realizing bridge is centralized and sometimes very buggy. Atomic swap can partially replace role of bridge, but it receive little adaption so far.


Unfortunately i expect it'll also cause some confusion due to Ordinals. I'd just say more complex scripting/programming.

Being turing-complete, as in Ethereum, means being prone to the halting problem.  In Bitcoin, you know when a script will start and when it will end.  If it was not, a tiny script could take an enormous amount of resources and time.  I think it is much safer to avoid this altogether, or use it in sidechain (e.g., RSK).

We should be able to do that with an atomic swap or something similar. Although I'm not sure what is the consensus related to atomic swap, whether it is a smart contract or not. I'm not comfortable relying on exchange if I want to swap one coin for another, and the bridge is not really the best solution since it is geared more toward developers or businesses to take profits from market exposure instead of assets security IMO.

That being said, testing the code is definitely required even if it is not as 'complex' as smart contracts. CMIIW.

I prefer using the simpler term "token creation feature" instead of "Turing complete" since it is a lot more user friendly specially for those who are not familiar with the protocols and with what a smart contract means in first place and use it in the wrong context.

The beauty of Bitcoin’s base chain is that it’s very simple. Sure, people can do Ethereum-like smart contracts if they want via sidechains and layer-2s, but having them on the base chain removes the beauty of Bitcoin’s simplicity.

Although what pooya87 posted is technically true, I believe OP was talking more about Turing-complete programming and smart contracts that Ethereum has.


Probably true.


Definitely not true. Haha.


On a technical level the bandwidth and processing requirements for each node will increase, forcing the network to centralize towards the entities who have the resources and/or the willingness to spend more to run a full node.

Being a centralized project built on top of Bitcoin won't matter, what matters is the network.


No, they'll be just narratives.


Probably true.


We shouldn't say "it's perfect" but it's good enough for what the world needs, and in my opinion, the world needs at least one censorship-resistant cryptocurrency network as a back up in case the financial system crashes.

There are some parts in Bitcoin that have ossified and will never change, but some parts probably need more development.


It will widen the protocol's attack vector.

Bridges should not need to exist in the first place. That's what exchanges are for. It is theoretically impossible to code the swapping of two coins in a secure way, because at any given time, the funds will belong to a particular address, which can change, if any kind of security vulnerability is found inside the contract.

It's easy to make bugs - we make thousands of them every day. Finding them is a whole different matter.

It always has bene possible to create centralized project/service which utilize Bitcoin blockchain. For example, Liquid (which is one of many Bitcoin sidechain) is federated.


Have you forgotten about Ordinals and product which depends on it (e.g. BRC-20 and ORC-20)?


But the root of such problem is incompetent developer who don't test their code very properly or lack of money to hire proper developer.


I wouldn't say Bitcoin is perfect. And i would say what makes Bitcoin great is it's decentralization. But i agree there's no need to add smart contract (as in turing complete script) when people could do that on Bitcoin sidechain.

If Bitcoin indeed becomes smart contract active, the decentralization part might be intact... or might not. Though centralization could enter the picture, its complex. One could argue that Bitcoin's essential nature is its decentralization. Smart contracts? Maybe they change it, maybe not. But digital gold should be digital gold, after all.

Meme coins and stupid coins tarnishing Bitcoin's image is a valid point; however, it could increase its value and decrease it too. It could both enhance and diminish people's trust simultaneously, as long as Bitcoin remains what it is today - digital gold.

Bridges chaos, hacks, loss of money, are genuine concerns with smart contracts; though these concerns might be less or more concerning. Maybe it's easier to lose money, or it's not. But one thing is clear: Bitcoin doesnt need more stupid features; it only needs to be faster.

Bitcoin's perfection is subjective. Being all-in-one could make it less noticeable or more noticeable, depending on various factors. And yet, it's best because it's not like other projects.

I wouldn't agree to the statement which says the smart contact facility will make bitcoin more pricey. I rather think, Bitcoin network will become sluggish and expensive if bitcoin has a smart contract facility. We have already seen a glimpse with the Ordinals. So surely I wouldn't want that kind of madness again.

Bitcoin is great in it's raw form. Lightening network is here is solve the slowness and expensive transaction fees. That's all what is needed for Bitcoin.

What Bitcoin needs, and will be getting soon(LORD Willing), possibly on sidechain/L2, is advanced smart-contract system. It currently has a basic smart-contract which doesn't do much. So, having an advanced smart contract that is seperate from the main chain is the best way to go especially for experimental purposes, until developers are certain it can be safely applied on the mainchain, or whether it's better to keep using it seperatetly.
In regards to decentralization and using the smart contract by users ... a good smart contract system will need to be run on the Bitcoin principles. like the Bitcoin nodes, it should be possible for participants to run and verify every contract for security, correctness, and according to laid down rules to prevent people/things from abusing or misusing it.

Both assumptions are wrong.
Bloating bitcoin blockchain with tokens (the form of smart contracts you have in mind) will effectively kill bitcoin even if in short term it could pump it a little.
It also doesn't do anything to scam projects because by nature when anybody is free to create a token, many will create scam ones not to mention that the idea of creating a token out of thin air that has absolutely no purpose and selling it to people is a scam by nature (ie. without exception)!

Bitcoin has smart contracts, the locking/pubkey +unlocking/signature scripts are all smart contracts.
Adding token creation option is what you mean and it can remain decentralized and be a token creation platform. Keep in mind that just because a shitplatform like ethereum is centralized doesn't mean every other one should be too.
For example we have bitcoin side-chains like RSK that are a lot more decentralized when compared to ethereum.

That's true but lets not forget that such a thing will change the utility of bitcoin from being a payment system and a currency into being a token platform.

It is easy to lose money when the smart contract is built on top of a buggy platform/protocol like ethereum like the case with DAO and many others like it. Otherwise if the protocol is solid and bug free, it will be extremely hard to lose money by using that protocol.
Case in point bitcoin smart contracts (ie as I said every transaction we have ever made) from 2009 till today have been completely secure.

Bitcoin is the "best" because it does what it is supposed to do and does it correctly.
Bitcoin is supposed to be a decentralized censorship resistance payment system and it is exactly that.

The problem with other projects is that they are not doing what they are supposed to do. For example  Ethereum was supposed to be a secure immutable decentralized token creation platform but it is none of that. It is an insecure centralized token creation platform with a mutable blockchain that they can reverse if they wish to.

These are all just assumptions and nothing more than that, because if ETH did not exist, there would probably be some other altcoin and attract people to invest in it for one reason only, and that is the price. Therefore, regardless of what features Bitcoin does not have compared to some altcoins, I don't think it would change the general perception of the average investor who doesn't really understand the difference between Bitcoin and any other cryptocurrency.

I therefore do not think that there would be fewer scam projects, but I can agree that more people would invest in Bitcoin if some other altcoins did not distract them, and not only the one you cite as an example, but also some others that have appeared in the past years and are presented as cheap alternatives to Bitcoin.

If you ever have the opportunity to ask the following question, what do you think the answer will be?

For the same amount of money I offer you 15 ETH or 1 BTC, which would you choose?

In reality, the introduction of smart contracts through the use of taprots is possible on Bitcoin, so your statement is rather inaccurate.  As for the price, I can't tell you if it would have remained unchanged but I don't think it could have affected too much.

Wrong assumption, without the help of any other cryptocurrency, bitcoin still remains the most valuable cryptocurrency till date, for bitcoin to have same potential like any other cryptocurrency means it's degraded itself which is never going to be possible, other cryptocurrencies rely on bitcoin, why should bitcoin then come so low depending on them, most of them are centralized and uses PoS while bitcoin is PoW.


This is just a statement without bearing, as long as bitcoin remains, any other cryptocurrencies remains altcoins and some of them are scam and this cannot be controlled, this is why you have bitcoin as the only most recognized crypto and which cannot scam anyone no matter how, your friend is just beating around the bush, he have no idea of what he's saying neither did he understands the whole thing involved.

Your question has been answered by this user.


1. Smart contract isn't always centralized.

2. I don't think shitcoins that use Bitcoin network will make Bitcoin is scam, there's no correlation. Remember, BRC-20 tokens network and Bitcoin on chain are different, so whenever the network in BRC-20 tokens get hacked, it's not mean Bitcoin on chain has a same vulnerability.

3. and 4. Pretty much similar like the number 2.

I have this discussion with few friends two days ago and I want to share it today on this forum, my friends believe that if Bitcoin has the same potential as Ethereum every crypto projects in this space won't matter and Bitcoin would probably be more pricey in value than what it is today, they also claimed that there won't be a lot of scam projects like today.

I answered them with the following, though they don't really accept, so what do you guys think?

1. If Bitcoin is smart contract active it won't be able to keep it's decentralized part alive because smart contract ability will give access to centralized projects building and running on Bitcoin.

2. Many new projects will tarnish the respect and image that Bitcoin has right now, because meme coins and stupid shit coins will run on Bitcoin and this will make people to lose money, once that happens Bitcoin as scam is just going to get worse.

3. There will be bridges chaos and more money will be lost, the problem will be much more than what it is right now because I believe it's easier to lose money through smart contracts e.g hacks that happens through bridges and other.

4. Bitcoin is perfect as it is right now, adding smart contract or trying to perfected Bitcoin, into all in one would have make it a less noticeable in crypto space, because it will be contending with Ethereum and others, it's best because it's not like other projects.

If you think my friends or I am right or wrong please share your own opinion.