Topic: SatoshiVM - "A New Era For Bitcoin" (Read 358 times)

Sadly for now this is true for all sidechains (while RSK and Liquid have some adoption, they aren't seen as an alternative for most Bitcoin users), and I doubt SatoshiVM will change that.

I think also that real Bitcoin enthusiasts will only really massively migrate to sidechains with the same enthusiasm like some show for LN when their native token distribution becomes decentralized, e.g. done via PoW. That seems to be currently a major hurdle - all operational sidechains I've seen, either on Ethereum (where rollups already are quite popular) or on Bitcoin, are either federated or work with a highly centralized native token. This means that in general the operators, or a small group of large investors, have control if something fails - and they could also probably scam the participants if they wanted to.

It's possible that the reason for that are simply economic incentives (operating any centralized altcoin makes it much easier to earn money for the devs). But it's also possible that the technical obstacles for secure sidechains with 2-way pegs, which have been extensively discussed for example at Paul Sztorc's website, are still valid - and thus it's possible that a decentralized sidechain is highly likely to fail.

We could however start an experiment: Simply create a fork of Nomic, which is PoS (Cosmos/Tendermint-based). But instead of distributing it per ICO, do it according to a snapshot of a PoW altcoin (either one that already exists, or a new altcoin created). We'd have a sidechain which would be the most decentralized on the market

---

PS: Just a little addition: Those with doubts about that project seem to have a point. The token distribution seems to have been quite shady - red flag, as I already wrote. I fear this may not be a serious project at all.

You can still make those on Lightning, though. And why would you want to pay $10 to move that JPEG from one owner to another if you can do it on Lightning for $0.01? Lightning security is based on Bitcoin security; we should really try to put / keep as much stuff as possible off-chain.

That's true; I still need to check that one out, preferably after source code is released.

While you're correct, most people only care whether how well it works and it's adaption (e.g. which wallet or exchange support it). And with no detail how "sequencer" (party who create block) is chosen, i expect many enthusiast won't bother trying SatoshiVM either.


At least for RSK, Bitcoin TX also created on these occasion,
1. Merged mining, https://dev.rootstock.io/rsk/architecture/mining/implementation-guide/.
2. Powpeg/federator members update, https://dev.rootstock.io/rsk/architecture/security/.

Although obviously it has no noticeable impact on TX fee or blockchain size.

Finally we have Gas on Bitcoin! 
I don't think this will move all ordinals spam from main chain to this new satoshiVM, but I am sure second layer solutions will grow and compete in future, so let the best ones win.
Problem with all this solutions can be potential bugs and flaws with code, this is all uncharted territory, but I see satoshiVM has a lot of transactions and activity on testnet:
https://testnet.svmscan.io/stats

I think I saw that RGB is going to work with Liquid Network, and that is gaining more attention with new Aqua wallet that supports both LN and main chain along with Liquid.

I think the crucial difference is the way how the sidechain would be to be implemented, according to the information available until now in the whitepaper.

SatoshiVM is thought to be a rollup, this means it's not a completely independent sidechain but rather a method to bundle transactions so they occupy less space on L1 (but regularly injecting data on L1).

RSK and Liquid are currently federated, but afaik their goal is not to use rollup technology but eventually become completely independent sidechains with 2-way pegs, so apart from the deposit/withdrawal transactions, no information has to be stored on L1. This is of course a much more ambitious goal. RSK was originally aiming for the Drivechain 2-way peg mechanism, but they have recently moved more in the direction of a dynamic federation, as already operational on Nomic. Drivechain seems to be still in testing stage but its big problem is that it requires new Bitcoin opcodes.

I am however also a bit disappointed about the lacking level of detail of the technical explanations for SatoshiVM. While there are some docs available, they don't explain the really critical points (above all: which kind of (Taproot) script is used on BTC to block coins which are currently living on the sidechain until a withdrawal takes place?) This could be seen even as a kind of red flag. Another red flag could be the planned token distribution, which looks very much like an average ICO and thus very centralized. At its very least, it looks like a very early-stage project, even if there seems to be an usable Testnet app.

Anyway it's worthy to follow its evolution over time.

But you can use Taproot Assets in dashboards like LNbits and ThunderHub, right? At least I remember seeing an option to interact with them.

As far as Ordinals goes, the only people making integrations for it are exchanges and stupid Opensea clone marketplaces. With the exception of the canonical Ordinals client (ord), open-source development of Ordinals is practically non-existant.

My hypothesis, it will be Proof Of Stake. Because these " decentralized networks" outside of Bitcoin generally issue "tokens", I believe SatoshiVM will issue one of its own, then have those sequencers "stake" their "tokens", and their users delegate their own "tokens".

I will not open a debate on why Proof Of Stake is flawed. That deserves its own topic.


It will probably through an off-chain Bitcoin to on-chain Bitcoin market of some sort?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯