Proposal Ethereum as the layer 2 to Bitcoin

[NotPr0]

Imagine an entity that would take btc into a multi sig wallet and then wrap it onto eth. The idea might seem unneeded but think about what it would enable. Companies could use the btc network for high value transfers or storage but otherwise most would be kept in the wrapped state. We then port all btc services to running on eth and just using btc chain for issuance. This allows us to have both a highly flexible environment for dapps and a way to reduce the verification needed and block size for btc. We immediately allow Bitcoin access to the world's biggest platform for the world's most decentralised currency. This would make eth the l2 for btc. Btc transactions would go from 10m to 15s and we can utilize projects like plasma and zk rollup for instant micro transactions or fully anonymous btc transactions. This would require no hard fork to btc at all. The funds for the tokn issuance and holding btc could be a multisig spread through large players in the space through a consortium with players such as  Coinbase, Kraken or even governments being part to help them to have a reason to embrace blockchain and cryptocurrency by letting them feel like they have a say without giving up power to them. We can make Bitcoin be the best currency on top of the best platform with the most choice.

[1715432511]

1715432511

[1715432511]

1715432511

[1715432511]

1715432511

[1715432511]

1715432511

[pooya87]

bitcoin as a decentralized and immutable cryptocurrency does not really math with others that are both centralized and mutable so you can't really combine it with something like ethereum. besides if smart contracts is all you want, we already have second layers that can do that in a lot better manner. check out RootStock for instance.

[HeRetiK]

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying but... I don't think that this is how any of this works. You can't just graft one blockchain onto another to get the best of both worlds. Especially not in the way described.

If you're really interested in how to get separate blockchains to benefit from one another look into atomic cross chain swaps of what the future of cryptocurrency may entail.

[bitmover]

I think there is no need.

It's possible to implement smartcontracts and some others ethereum capabilities to bitcoin
Not all of ethereum capabilities, but the most important ones.

[mda]

Your proposal assumes that scaling of Ethereum is a done deal. However Buterin's declaration about 100000 transactions per second is not quite enough, proofs are needed as well.

[hosseinamin]

Prominent use-case of Ethereum is to create a new currency with new rules like ICO's. Decentralization is a myth remained in most discussions.

There's need for two important features in these currencies.

1. All participants should be able to validate the integrity of the ledger.
2. Ledger should be resistant to changes. Ultimate goal = immutable ledger

Instead of Ethereum I like the idea of each currency have their own blockchain with the above features.
In example of ICO's. All of them have issuer (owner). So it being public (mining/staking based) Doesn't make sense.
Also maintaining staking/mining based consensus is expensive.
Running a privately owned blockchain is the way to go.  And in this thread i did talk about how we can implement this feature in bitcoin in such a way to it would be very efficient to run (less expensive).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5120606.0

[Sergio_Demian_Lerner]

Rootstock (now RSK) seems to offer what you need. It's a merge-mined federated Bitcoin sidechain, compatible to Ethereum. Check www.rsk.co

[HeRetiK]

2. Ledger should be resistant to changes. Ultimate goal = immutable ledger

Running a privately owned blockchain is the way to go.

Private blockchains and immutability are exclusive, you can't have both. Ethereum's DAO debacle is a prime example of what happens to immutability when certain parties have too much power within an ecosystem.

[hosseinamin]

2. Ledger should be resistant to changes. Ultimate goal = immutable ledger

Running a privately owned blockchain is the way to go.

Private blockchains and immutability are exclusive, you can't have both. Ethereum's DAO debacle is a prime example of what happens to immutability when certain parties have too much power within an ecosystem.

I don't think so. If the blockchain can fail (meaning if an invalid block generated. It will die for those who consider it invalid). And it requires a single entity to control the chain. It's obviously centralized. But some applications don't require it to be open and public. This doesn't mean it should be permission based.
Immutability can help multiple users make sure either blockchain will fail or confirmation goes through. Still the main chain (bitcoin) can re-org and change the history of private chain.

Edit:
By this i meant. "This doesn't mean it should be permission based." => Still that blockchain can use bitcoin's code as Its base.

By private blockchain i mean, The ownership is private. It doesn't prevent the blockchain to get validated and used by other users.

[lukew]

I've already proposed a similar system in the past, I even developed it to the point of being to make card payments in Bitcoin. I almost had it ready for demo at Coinfest 2016 and the general concensus (on here at least at the time) was that Bitcoin is fine as it is and there's little need for a faster confirmation time. I'm still developing for Bitcoin but my focus has moved onto a new payment system based on Ethereum tokens (and not another coin with an ICO to raise funds)

[Wind_FURY]

OP, you can build on Bitcoin anything you want, no matter how good or stupid, as long as it doesn't alter, or needs to alter the consensus layer.

[hv_]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

[Wind_FURY]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

[hv_]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  
Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

[Wind_FURY]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.

Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

[hv_]

The primary goal / purpose of bitcoin was (cheap) P2P eCash (cash tx are cheap) so btc or eth is not what u want here.

That was the goal, but the reality of blockchains and increasing transaction throughput through a simple block size increase, while maintaining decentralization is not possible.

Blockchains don't scale.

But u can always link any (hashed) contract u want with the op_return and let a bunch of other payed services (incl yourself) execute the code (hashed) - so not all miners need to do that 'permissionless' < what is questionable to have anyhow.

So smart contracts can be linked into bitcoin - better not such as ETH does - BSV is doing such best imo - and stays at P2P eCash as a base Service.

Edit: Just seen - see how this is coming in https://www.coindesk.com/swiss-watchdog-rules-crypto-miners-ico-seriously-violated-laws

Plus their experiment should be encouraged. It's the best way to learn.

I have one question, do all in Bitcoin Cash SV believe Craig Wright = Satoshi? I'm asking out of curiousity, nothing else.

Sure. Minimal protocols can scale. Even using a blockchain.  

Then explain how you can scale a network like Ethereum while maintaining decentralization.

Opneness ensures the decentrality. U even cannot define what u re talking and recommending from above?

I define "scaling the network while maintaining decentralization" as making it bigger by increasing the node count as more users use Bitcoin.

So less rules do a great job for scaling. Ask netflix or even eMail to show how that goes.

There are more proofs for scalability of bitcoin than that nonsense u want others to beleive.

If you believe centralization is one of the answers to scale Bitcoin to millions of people, then I would have to agree. But that's not why we are here, are we?

Scaling means to really do industrial scaling. So if the world is using Bitcoin in 10y u will count about 10k companies to run the 'nodes' and These are supposed to be rather miners than just relay nodes.   Think Big - it helps for global scaling tasks


Smart contracts can be part of op_return or deployed with the Bitcoin script - as I mentioned this must not be permissionless as ETH is - since u invite all sorts off illegal crap into Bitcoin (as ETH or other full permissionless smart contract chains already do ... expect them to be killed by Regulator et al)

Keep Bitcoin to stay just a scalable permissionless eCash message system - all related stuff is better to be NOT permissionless (for scaling and legal).     

[HeRetiK]

Smart contracts can be part of op_return or deployed with the Bitcoin script - as I mentioned this must not be permissionless as ETH is - since u invite all sorts off illegal crap into Bitcoin (as ETH or other full permissionless smart contract chains already do ... expect them to be killed by Regulator et al)

There are many centralized alts that can serve as a permissioned cryptocurrency if you so wish. I'd rather not have Bitcoin regress to the control levels of PayPal and credit cards, thank you very much.

[hv_]

Smart contracts can be part of op_return or deployed with the Bitcoin script - as I mentioned this must not be permissionless as ETH is - since u invite all sorts off illegal crap into Bitcoin (as ETH or other full permissionless smart contract chains already do ... expect them to be killed by Regulator et al)

There are many centralized alts that can serve as a permissioned cryptocurrency if you so wish. I'd rather not have Bitcoin regress to the control levels of PayPal and credit cards, thank you very much.

How on earth could an open protocol and an open ecosystem be like Paypal or any other closed / central entitiy ??

BTW the less rules the open protocol has, the more open it is and the better it is scalable ...

[HeRetiK]

Smart contracts can be part of op_return or deployed with the Bitcoin script - as I mentioned this must not be permissionless as ETH is - since u invite all sorts off illegal crap into Bitcoin (as ETH or other full permissionless smart contract chains already do ... expect them to be killed by Regulator et al)

There are many centralized alts that can serve as a permissioned cryptocurrency if you so wish. I'd rather not have Bitcoin regress to the control levels of PayPal and credit cards, thank you very much.

How on earth could an open protocol and an open ecosystem be like Paypal or any other closed / central entitiy ??

By introducing permissioned components as suggested in your post above.

Once you allow for measures against permissionlessness on the protocol level you're back at the restrictions of centralized services. While regulation on a legislative level is more or less unavoidable and to some extend desirable (eg. clear taxation laws on cryptocurrency income, clear legal frameworks to allow for legitimate exchanges to operate in), the technological foundation needs to be non-partisan and permissionless to allow for a meaningful improvement on existing systems.

I might be misunderstanding what you are suggesting though.

BTW the less rules the open protocol has, the more open it is and the better it is scalable ...

Simplicity does not necessarily equate openness and scalability. Also in the case of cryptocurrencies openness and scalability account for nothing if security and integrity are neglected.

[hv_]

Smart contracts can be part of op_return or deployed with the Bitcoin script - as I mentioned this must not be permissionless as ETH is - since u invite all sorts off illegal crap into Bitcoin (as ETH or other full permissionless smart contract chains already do ... expect them to be killed by Regulator et al)

There are many centralized alts that can serve as a permissioned cryptocurrency if you so wish. I'd rather not have Bitcoin regress to the control levels of PayPal and credit cards, thank you very much.

How on earth could an open protocol and an open ecosystem be like Paypal or any other closed / central entitiy ??

By introducing permissioned components as suggested in your post above.

Once you allow for measures against permissionlessness on the protocol level you're back at the restrictions of centralized services. While regulation on a legislative level is more or less unavoidable and to some extend desirable (eg. clear taxation laws on cryptocurrency income, clear legal frameworks to allow for legitimate exchanges to operate in), the technological foundation needs to be non-partisan and permissionless to allow for a meaningful improvement on existing systems.

I might be misunderstanding what you are suggesting though.

BTW the less rules the open protocol has, the more open it is and the better it is scalable ...

Simplicity does not necessarily equate openness and scalability. Also in the case of cryptocurrencies openness and scalability account for nothing if security and integrity are neglected.

The only legit and scalable new thing here is Bitcoin as a permissionless p2p eCash protocol, working as the smtp for value exchange.

All other additional functions like smart contracts that should execute a legal contract like issuing tokens on a blockchain have to be centralized/ permissioned cause u need to be compliant with law anyway, except u want to scam others.  So pls do NOT shill or create such things that are easily enable scamming, better vote for decent institutions who are compliant with law.

The only legit decentralized service is Bitcoin described in the white paper , following the specs and purpose.

With this exactly recommended simplicity comes in and all the ( cyber-) risk guys can do their jobs. Protocol stability helps a lot btw.  Second simplicity and functional decomposition goes hand in hand with scaling ability, since u only want to scale the parts that need it by maximum parallel processing.

All that makes Bitcoin way more secure, cause many individual folks will have deep dives into and make it happen for the world,   decentralized comes as a result