"Trustless Computer" on Bitcoin? Information/opinions?

[KingZee]

I've seen this gain traction on twitter, but I'm here to solicit more opinions and takes from actual bitcoiners.

https://trustless.computer

I have used this just today. The premise is that the dapps are running on bitcoin. But there is a chain on the middle, which is "trustless computer".

The thing is that the transactions for the "dapps" are made on the bitcoin network, so I am not sure how the full details of the decentralization here works. For example, they have a "name system" set up, where I visit the name system "dapp", choose to register a name, connect it to my "trustless computer" wallet, and broadcast&sign a transaction on Bitcoin, to get my "name".

Have you guys ever heard of this? I searched for "trustless computer" and got zero results across the forum.

There was a coindesk article that mentioned this today, which is why I decided to come here.

https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/2023/05/17/the-blocksize-wars-revisited-how-bitcoins-civil-war-still-resonates-today/

[NotATether]

My personal opinion is that some of the apps they have as ideas for using the Bitcoin network are just silly, like Bitcoin Photos.

Not all applications & use cases make sense without a delete function. In the case of getting hacked for example.

[pooya87]

The premise is that the dapps are running on bitcoin.

No they are not. Just because you can store arbitrary bytes on bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a vulnerability in the new scripts introduced by Taproot that doesn't mean they are running on bitcoin.

Imagine if you stored the same bytes for a "token" (the smart contract in byte form) on bitcointalk inside a forum post. Can you claim that "dapps are running on bitcointalk"?

[rat03gopoh]

Just skimming a few featured dapps, the question is do they actually run on the bitcoin blockchain? Every time I click "connect wallet" almost all the dapps just ask for the metamask knowing it supports EVM multi-chain. And check out their explore page too https://explorer.trustless.computer

I don't know if I welcomed the BRC20 so badly that I didn't learn more about how it works.

[KingZee]

My personal opinion is that some of the apps they have as ideas for using the Bitcoin network are just silly, like Bitcoin Photos.

Not all applications & use cases make sense without a delete function. In the case of getting hacked for example.

Yeah fair point but maybe it's for the sake of experimentation

Imagine if you stored the same bytes for a "token" (the smart contract in byte form) on bitcointalk inside a forum post. Can you claim that "dapps are running on bitcointalk"?

Well this is the question I was asking myself too. Wouldn't that be at least partially true? Your example of "dapps running on bitcointalk" only falls apart because bitcointalk is not an immutable decentralized chain.

The question I have is that, if by storing every transaction's "arbitrary bytes" on Bitcoin, guaranteeing its immutability and persistence, if you're able to store your smart contract AND completely recreate the entire "state" of the transactions performed on it by using solely what's stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, wouldn't you have effectively built it on bitcoin?

I guess the flaw remains only in verifying the truthfulness of this information, and if there is a method decentralized and trustless enough to consistently verify the truthfulness of this information by any given party.

[KingZee]

Just skimming a few featured dapps, the question is do they actually run on the bitcoin blockchain?

This is the thing, I don't think they do. I want to understand more about how this "trustless computer" interacts with the bitcoin blockchain, and how necessary is the confirmation of the bitcoin tx to the smart contract structure...

[vjudeu]

Wouldn't that be at least partially true? Your example of "dapps running on bitcointalk" only falls apart because bitcointalk is not an immutable decentralized chain.

This forum is not bulletproof, but many posts are processed by outside tools. That means, even if something is removed or edited, usually you can still access the first version.

The question I have is that, if by storing every transaction's "arbitrary bytes" on Bitcoin, guaranteeing its immutability and persistence, if you're able to store your smart contract AND completely recreate the entire "state" of the transactions performed on it by using solely what's stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, wouldn't you have effectively built it on bitcoin?

Not really, because consensus rules are not used to execute it. That means, you can create a coin, and say in the script "I created 50 ALTs" or "I created this NFT", or just anything else. But if someone else will do the same, then it will still be a perfectly valid transaction. Or you could say in your transaction "I moved 100 ALTs", and no Bitcoin full node will check that "hey, but you only had 50".

The way to enforce things in practice is to go through the whole soft-fork process, to make sure that most of the network will follow your rules. Without that, you can make some "pseudo contract", and then anyone could break it by making a different transaction than you expected. Those limits that were lifted for Taproot, were intended to be used in the future, in the next soft-forks. But people misused them now, so I expect next time they would be defined more strictly.

[Flexystar]

I am not expert in the field but after doing some research it seems the definition and working mode of the dApps is completely different than what you are explaining here. Just to know I read that most of the dApps are running on the Smart Contracts and they are on chain. There is no way they are getting embedded in the Bitcoin packets.

If dApps were running via trustless computer then they would have never gotten their confidence over smart contracts and their irreversible nature. That is the core reason they are also used in the financial services, social media and much more where once you perform an action, you are done.

How dapps work
Dapps have their backend code (smart contracts) running on a decentralized network and not a centralized server. They use the Ethereum blockchain for data storage and smart contracts for their app logic.

A smart contract is like a set of rules that live on-chain for all to see and run exactly according to those rules. Imagine a vending machine: if you supply it with enough funds and the right selection, you'll get the item you want. And like vending machines, smart contracts can hold funds much like your Ethereum account. This allows code to mediate agreements and transactions.

Once dapps are deployed on the Ethereum network you can't change them. Dapps can be decentralized because they are controlled by the logic written into the contract, not an individual or a company.

[pooya87]

Well this is the question I was asking myself too. Wouldn't that be at least partially true? Your example of "dapps running on bitcointalk" only falls apart because bitcointalk is not an immutable decentralized chain.

The question I have is that, if by storing every transaction's "arbitrary bytes" on Bitcoin, guaranteeing its immutability and persistence, if you're able to store your smart contract AND completely recreate the entire "state" of the transactions performed on it by using solely what's stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, wouldn't you have effectively built it on bitcoin?

I guess the flaw remains only in verifying the truthfulness of this information, and if there is a method decentralized and trustless enough to consistently verify the truthfulness of this information by any given party.

The main characteristic of a "smart contract" is its execution not its storage.

- Consider vending machines for example. The platform is centralized but it can execute the contract. You insert the money and select what you want, then the machine executes its smart contract and if it passes it automatically returns what you ordered. If you store that smart contract on bitcointalk which is centralized and mutable like the vending machine, it becomes arbitrary bytes because bitcointalk can not execute it.

- Now consider a P2WPKH smart contract. When you spend that output, the system (or full nodes) automatically "executes" that smart contract and if it passes your funds are transferred; otherwise you are prevented to execute that smart contract (ie. to spend someone else's money).
If you store your P2WPKH on bitcointalk it similarly becomes arbitrary useless bytes. Not because what you stored is not a smart contract or useful, but because bitcointalk can not execute them. Even if you manage to convince some other people that what you stored on bitcointalk has value and sell it to them!

- Now consider the arbitrary bytes that they are injecting into the blockchain using an exploit like Ordinals Attack. Who executes these contracts? Certainly not Bitcoin! That means it doesn't matter if Bitcoin is decentralization with a n immutable blockchain. That contract is executed elsewhere in another protocol on another platform that can be controlled by centralized entities that change the rules of it whenever they want. Exactly like Tether, a centralized protocol with a centralized platform that only stores arbitrary data on bitcoin blockchain (using OP_RETURN as Omni layer). The centralized entity controlling Tether can freeze your funds, increase/decrease the supply cap, ...

Now the full circle; if they mange to create a decentralized network then there is no need to use bitcoin blockchain anymore! It can execute and store the smart contracts at the same time. Can even be merge mined with bitcoin so that it can benefit from the huge hashrate bitcoin has.

[so98nn]

Well this is the question I was asking myself too. Wouldn't that be at least partially true? Your example of "dapps running on bitcointalk" only falls apart because bitcointalk is not an immutable decentralized chain.

The question I have is that, if by storing every transaction's "arbitrary bytes" on Bitcoin, guaranteeing its immutability and persistence, if you're able to store your smart contract AND completely recreate the entire "state" of the transactions performed on it by using solely what's stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, wouldn't you have effectively built it on bitcoin?

I guess the flaw remains only in verifying the truthfulness of this information, and if there is a method decentralized and trustless enough to consistently verify the truthfulness of this information by any given party.

The main characteristic of a "smart contract" is its execution not its storage.

- Consider vending machines for example. The platform is centralized but it can execute the contract. You insert the money and select what you want, then the machine executes its smart contract and if it passes it automatically returns what you ordered. If you store that smart contract on bitcointalk which is centralized and mutable like the vending machine, it becomes arbitrary bytes because bitcointalk can not execute it.

- Now consider a P2WPKH smart contract. When you spend that output, the system (or full nodes) automatically "executes" that smart contract and if it passes your funds are transferred; otherwise you are prevented to execute that smart contract (ie. to spend someone else's money).
If you store your P2WPKH on bitcointalk it similarly becomes arbitrary useless bytes. Not because what you stored is not a smart contract or useful, but because bitcointalk can not execute them. Even if you manage to convince some other people that what you stored on bitcointalk has value and sell it to them!

- Now consider the arbitrary bytes that they are injecting into the blockchain using an exploit like Ordinals Attack. Who executes these contracts? Certainly not Bitcoin! That means it doesn't matter if Bitcoin is decentralization with a n immutable blockchain. That contract is executed elsewhere in another protocol on another platform that can be controlled by centralized entities that change the rules of it whenever they want. Exactly like Tether, a centralized protocol with a centralized platform that only stores arbitrary data on bitcoin blockchain (using OP_RETURN as Omni layer). The centralized entity controlling Tether can freeze your funds, increase/decrease the supply cap, ...

Now the full circle; if they mange to create a decentralized network then there is no need to use bitcoin blockchain anymore! It can execute and store the smart contracts at the same time. Can even be merge mined with bitcoin so that it can benefit from the huge hashrate bitcoin has.

That is a fantastic explanation. Got to know something new today and it was really helpful. So currently everyone is not thinking out of the box because everyone just using the current blockchain without any second thought on making the new one. I am not sure what is stopping them from doing so because we have all the open source blue prints for the same.

Would it be chaotic to make another blockchain? Will it interfere the current stored data on our computers and make it cross linked in someway!

[n0nce]

Would it be chaotic to make another blockchain? Will it interfere the current stored data on our computers and make it cross linked in someway!

No; in fact, there are already dozens, if not hundreds of them (this list does have some errors, like listing Lightning Network as a blockchain).

You can definitely run multiple different blockchains' full node software in parallel, as well. They have their own install and data directories, so nothing should interfere.

[so98nn]

Would it be chaotic to make another blockchain? Will it interfere the current stored data on our computers and make it cross linked in someway!

No; in fact, there are already dozens, if not hundreds of them (this list does have some errors, like listing Lightning Network as a blockchain).

You can definitely run multiple different blockchains' full node software in parallel, as well. They have their own install and data directories, so nothing should interfere.

Ok, thats good. I was not even sure if that was a question to ask but considering blockchain with its mega data storage and complex algo a computer would go brrrr on its bus lines. Lolz.

So it's the same as having multiple apps on your phone. Let us say multiple wallets with their own universe within the phone environment and no matter how many you install they are not interfering. It's a broken example but that's the closest I could think about technically.

If so, multiple blockchains shall be created and it could lay off bigger burdens from the current blockchain. Imagine the Ordinal NFT getting shaded from the current chain and shifting it entirely on a different one.

[n0nce]

If so, multiple blockchains shall be created and it could lay off bigger burdens from the current blockchain. Imagine the Ordinal NFT getting shaded from the current chain and shifting it entirely on a different one.

Exactly; even Satoshi himself advocated for having different blockchains / altcoins for various purposes.
Specifically, BitDNS / Namecoin was the first such project (to my knowledge) and it still exists today.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

[pooya87]

If so, multiple blockchains shall be created and it could lay off bigger burdens from the current blockchain. Imagine the Ordinal NFT getting shaded from the current chain and shifting it entirely on a different one.

The thing about Ordinals is that if they move to another chain (aka a much better solution) it will simply die because it is not only useless but also they are not doing anything new! The NFT nonsense existed before on platforms like ethereum that are created with the sole purpose of token creation.
The only reason why they created it on top of Bitcoin by exploiting the protocol was to be able to hype it up and make some money by scamming newbies.