Is Bitcoin upgradeable to support smart contract?

[mi2018]

  why Bitcoin cannot in essence be upgraded to support smart contract or so?  for example

[1714136333]

1714136333

[1714136333]

1714136333

[1714136333]

1714136333

[1714136333]

1714136333

[1714136333]

1714136333

[HeRetiK]

Basic smart contracts are already supported, otherwise Lightning Network wouldn't be deployable on the Bitcoin blockchain and token protocol layers such as Counterparty and OMNI of Tether fame wouldn't exist. There's little fanfare about it and they are rather limited in comparison to the likes of Ethereum, but Bitcoin does have scripting capabilities even now.

Apart from that there's the Rootstock sidechain in the works, which is already running mainnet tests:
https://www.rsk.co/

And somewhere far, far down the road we might even see the likes of Simplicity implemented and deployed:
https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf

[cashberycoin.com]

Basic smart contracts are already supported, otherwise Lightning Network wouldn't be deployable on the Bitcoin blockchain and token protocol layers such as Counterparty and OMNI of Tether fame wouldn't exist. There's little fanfare about it and they are rather limited in comparison to the likes of Ethereum, but Bitcoin does have scripting capabilities even now.

Apart from that there's the Rootstock sidechain in the works, which is already running mainnet tests:
https://www.rsk.co/

And somewhere far, far down the road we might even see the likes of Simplicity implemented and deployed:
https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf

Yep, thank you!
It is bad, cause ethereum is going up and up faster, so many ICO's on Ethereum, so, Bitcoin would be more interesting for using in Smarts Contracts

[wack slacker]

Developing a bitcoin to support a smart contract is a waste and not a necessity. Since many projects have developed smart contracts. They do that from the beginning and bring efficiency. Bitcoin was born for the purpose of payment, bitcoin technology is outdated and the lines of code are hard to change. Improved bitcoin support for smart contracts may cause the blockchain bitcoin network to be slower than it is today.

[mi2018]

thank you very, now its very clear to me

[Cryptodetails]

  why Bitcoin cannot in essence be upgraded to support smart contract or so?  for example

Smart contracts are useful in the sense that they represent a decentralized system that exists between all parties to the agreement, helps to avoid conflict situations between them and saves their time without having to pay for the services of intermediaries. Blockboys have their shortcomings, but they are absolutely transparent and, undoubtedly, superior to traditional systems in speed, cost and security - that's why banks and governments express such interest towards them. I think bitcoin does not have anything to do with this!

[MCVXYZ]

Basic smart contracts are already supported, otherwise Lightning Network wouldn't be deployable on the Bitcoin blockchain and token protocol layers such as Counterparty and OMNI of Tether fame wouldn't exist. There's little fanfare about it and they are rather limited in comparison to the likes of Ethereum, but Bitcoin does have scripting capabilities even now.

Apart from that there's the Rootstock sidechain in the works, which is already running mainnet tests:
https://www.rsk.co/

And somewhere far, far down the road we might even see the likes of Simplicity implemented and deployed:
https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf

Yep, thank you!
It is bad, cause ethereum is going up and up faster, so many ICO's on Ethereum, so, Bitcoin would be more interesting for using in Smarts Contracts

I think it would not be as interesting as  you said,because there is no need for such a thing...Anyway its possible because of bitcoin’s developing nature but why do you need it when we already have ethereum? If there are problems in ethereum,we all know how good are the members of this project,therefore I can boldly say that they will develope everything on maximum level...

[HeRetiK]

Basic smart contracts are already supported, otherwise Lightning Network wouldn't be deployable on the Bitcoin blockchain and token protocol layers such as Counterparty and OMNI of Tether fame wouldn't exist. There's little fanfare about it and they are rather limited in comparison to the likes of Ethereum, but Bitcoin does have scripting capabilities even now.

Apart from that there's the Rootstock sidechain in the works, which is already running mainnet tests:
https://www.rsk.co/

And somewhere far, far down the road we might even see the likes of Simplicity implemented and deployed:
https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf

FYI, specifically Bitcoin only support Non-Turing Complete script which use Stack-based programming language for simplicity and that's why most people refer it as basic smart contract or script.
If Bitcoin were to support Turing Complete, that would make lots of new bugs/vulnerability and burden the network due to Smart/Complicated smart-contract. Also, that would mean Bitcoin smart-contract use another language since i doubt anyone use Stack-based programming language these days.

In my opinion Turing-complete smart contracts are the biggest blunder to ever grace blockchains. They are simply not rigorous enough for an immutable, adversarial environment. The incentive to exploit a smart contract is too high to rely on scripts that can not be proven to be correct. Accordingly I welcome the decision to keep Simplicity non-Turing-complete. While current Bitcoin scripting capabilities are rather limited, Simplicity could change that in a secure and sane manner. Let's see if it ever gets beyond being a concept though.

I think it would not be as interesting as  you said,because there is no need for such a thing...Anyway its possible because of bitcoin’s developing nature but why do you need it when we already have ethereum? If there are problems in ethereum,we all know how good are the members of this project,therefore I can boldly say that they will develope everything on maximum level...

That's a silly thing to say.

"Why do we need Bitcoin if we already have the Dollar?"

"Why do we need email if we already have fax?"

"Why do we need automobiles if we already have horses?"

[Kakmakr]

Smart contracts were first proposed in 1994 by Nick Szabo, an American computer scientist who invented a virtual currency called "Bit Gold" in 1998, fully 10 years before the invention of Bitcoin. In fact, Szabo is often rumoured to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous inventor of Bitcoin, which he has denied.

Original source : https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smart-contracts.asp

I am still convinced that Szabo is one of the people who invented Bitcoin. I am also one of those people who think Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym for a group of people and not just one person.  

[etherixdevs]

I think that too
Historically, if you study the white papers, you may see that bitcoin white paper and Satoshi Nakamoto quotes Szabo's work.
I am convinced too that SN is a group of devs, not just 1 person.

[MCVXYZ]

Basic smart contracts are already supported, otherwise Lightning Network wouldn't be deployable on the Bitcoin blockchain and token protocol layers such as Counterparty and OMNI of Tether fame wouldn't exist. There's little fanfare about it and they are rather limited in comparison to the likes of Ethereum, but Bitcoin does have scripting capabilities even now.

Apart from that there's the Rootstock sidechain in the works, which is already running mainnet tests:
https://www.rsk.co/

And somewhere far, far down the road we might even see the likes of Simplicity implemented and deployed:
https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf

FYI, specifically Bitcoin only support Non-Turing Complete script which use Stack-based programming language for simplicity and that's why most people refer it as basic smart contract or script.
If Bitcoin were to support Turing Complete, that would make lots of new bugs/vulnerability and burden the network due to Smart/Complicated smart-contract. Also, that would mean Bitcoin smart-contract use another language since i doubt anyone use Stack-based programming language these days.

In my opinion Turing-complete smart contracts are the biggest blunder to ever grace blockchains. They are simply not rigorous enough for an immutable, adversarial environment. The incentive to exploit a smart contract is too high to rely on scripts that can not be proven to be correct. Accordingly I welcome the decision to keep Simplicity non-Turing-complete. While current Bitcoin scripting capabilities are rather limited, Simplicity could change that in a secure and sane manner. Let's see if it ever gets beyond being a concept though.

I think it would not be as interesting as  you said,because there is no need for such a thing...Anyway its possible because of bitcoin’s developing nature but why do you need it when we already have ethereum? If there are problems in ethereum,we all know how good are the members of this project,therefore I can boldly say that they will develope everything on maximum level...

That's a silly thing to say.

"Why do we need Bitcoin if we already have the Dollar?"

"Why do we need email if we already have fax?"

"Why do we need automobiles if we already have horses?"

Everyone has a different views and opinions about this issue...But this is not an argument what you said.I just wanted to say that bitcoin is created for us to make transactions without intermediaries,therefore we don't (I personally) know how will it keep its  technical nuances.
So you compare dollar and bitcoin but both are very different things,for example when you can't meet the seller how do you pay him? therefore the need for such a thing is particularly urgent because we hadn't the system with the idea of applying cryptography to cash,but what about smart contracts we already have the opportunity to achieve our special goals by ethereum and that's why I said.Anyway I don't know may my opinion is not right...

[cashberycoin.com]

Basic smart contracts are already supported, otherwise Lightning Network wouldn't be deployable on the Bitcoin blockchain and token protocol layers such as Counterparty and OMNI of Tether fame wouldn't exist. There's little fanfare about it and they are rather limited in comparison to the likes of Ethereum, but Bitcoin does have scripting capabilities even now.

Apart from that there's the Rootstock sidechain in the works, which is already running mainnet tests:
https://www.rsk.co/

And somewhere far, far down the road we might even see the likes of Simplicity implemented and deployed:
https://blockstream.com/simplicity.pdf

Thank you for good answer!
We have thought today about it

[HeRetiK]

I think it would not be as interesting as  you said,because there is no need for such a thing...Anyway its possible because of bitcoin’s developing nature but why do you need it when we already have ethereum? If there are problems in ethereum,we all know how good are the members of this project,therefore I can boldly say that they will develope everything on maximum level...

That's a silly thing to say.

"Why do we need Bitcoin if we already have the Dollar?"

"Why do we need email if we already have fax?"

"Why do we need automobiles if we already have horses?"

Everyone has a different views and opinions about this issue...But this is not an argument what you said.I just wanted to say that bitcoin is created for us to make transactions without intermediaries,therefore we don't (I personally) know how will it keep its  technical nuances.

No.

You didn't say "Let's keep Bitcoin simple" which is a fine argument with which I fully concur.

The statement I critized was "why do you need it when we already have ethereum?" which is a phrase that tries to shut down any meaningful discussion without bringing anything new to the table while also oversimplifying the matter.

So you compare dollar and bitcoin but both are very different things

Exactly.

And Bitcoin smart contracts could be very different things from Ethereum smart contracts. Or Neo smart contracts. Or Stellar smart contracts. Or Waves smart contracts. Or whatever other approach there is out there because apparently smart contract platforms are a dime a dozen these days. Which doesn't mean that alternative approaches aren't worth exploring. Which is the point I'm trying to make.

for example when you can't meet the seller how do you pay him?

With wire transfers, credit cards, PayPal and whatever else people out there are using because they don't see the point in cryptocurrencies or find them impractical.

[...] but what about smart contracts we already have the opportunity to achieve our special goals by ethereum

If people had stuck with this line of thinking they would have been happy with Bitcoin's scripting capabilities and not explored the likes of Ethereum in the first place.

Anyway I don't know may my opinion is not right...

I might have misunderstood your initial comment. What I'm trying to say is this: Don't write new technologies off just because its merit isn't visible at a first glance. Similarity does not imply sameness.