Smart contracts on Bitcoin...Are they worth it?

[Abiky]

I've seen this new movement of adding smart contracts functionality to Bitcoin using sidechains. Ever since Taproot was implemented, developers have been working heavily on this. We now have Rootstock (RSK), and Stacks as sidechains which provide smart contracts functionality to BTC. This could be game-changer as it'll make Bitcoin similar to Ethereum in every way. But even better because of the BTC blockchain's higher level of security. Sometimes I wonder if smart contracts are even necessary on Bitcoin, since we already have a plethora of smart contract platforms with their own use cases (Ethereum, BSC, Cardano, Cosmos, etc). Bitcoin was meant to be used only for financial applications. Adding smart contracts would complicate things even more, opening the path for vulnerabilities/flaws and whatnot.

What do you think? Is it a good idea for Bitcoin to have smart contract features? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

[DaveF]

IMO, probably not much change in the long term in the use of BTC

Short term when they 1st really become popular and people discuss it as the next big thing, yes there will be a big bump as yet again everyone interprets it as the new Magical Internet Money Machine.

As time goes on and it becomes evident that it's just another part of the evolution of BTC then it will become just another thing that you can do with BTC and just become accepted as part of it.

So, yes the more you can do with BTC the better it is, so smart contracts are worth it from that view.

-Dave

[icalical]

I am kinda in a neutral side, I mean I don't think it's a bad idea, it will definitely attract more adopter for Bitcoin, but I don't think it's necessary either. We already have many smart contract platform, Ethereum, Binance Smart-Chain, Cardano, that's only 3 among many others, the smart-contract market is too crowded, Bitcoin doesn't need to jump into that. Just be a cryptocurrency is enough I think.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Am not insinuating here that this is possible but we can consider the way the introduction of bitcoin Ordinals set in before we all know it, so there's nothing impossible in this era, the only impossibility is for bitcoin to change from its usual protocols under the bases of it foundation, we cannot say what may be the miners decisions when they're having no more block reward after everything would have been mined, we don't know what may comes out as the latest update from the developers community concerning bitcoin network and sidechains.

[pooya87]

I've seen this new movement of adding smart contracts functionality to Bitcoin using sidechains. Ever since Taproot was implemented, developers have been working heavily on this. We now have Rootstock (RSK), and Stacks as sidechains which provide smart contracts functionality to BTC.

To be clear Bitcoin has had smart contracts from day one. In fact Satoshi introduced this way of using Smart Contracts when he created Bitcoin then others expanded it in their altcoins.

These side-chains are introducing Turing complete smart contracts.
Also RSK is not new, if I'm not mistaken it used to be an altcoin back in 2013 and then they took the idea and turned it into the concept RootStock RSK in 2014-2015 and the chain launched in 2018. None of it has anything to do with Taproot though.

This could be game-changer as it'll make Bitcoin similar to Ethereum in every way.

Not at all.
Unlike Ethereum that is a mess, Bitcoin will remain decentralized and will keep its blockchain immutable.

What do you think? Is it a good idea for Bitcoin to have smart contract features? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Another way of looking at this is what you call "having smart contract features" actually means "having token creation features". In which case the answer is no it is not a good idea because tokens are still useless and they would only clog the network with more junk.
Even if some day a usefulness is found for tokens it is still not a good idea to have them in bitcoin because there is no point in accumulating all features into one project when we can have more.

Having them in a side-chain is better but only as long as they don't end up spamming the main chain for their pegs.

[OgNasty]

I would personally love to see smart contracts on Bitcoin. I am involved in a community Bitcoin project (NastyFans) that is constantly troubled with problems due to centralization and trust. It could be replaced by a simple smart contract and thrive, but as is, everything must have human involvement to be safe. It sucks being subjected to other people’s opinions. Especially when they don’t know what they’re doing. Smart contracts fix this.

[Abiky]

To be clear Bitcoin has had smart contracts from day one. In fact Satoshi introduced this way of using Smart Contracts when he created Bitcoin then others expanded it in their altcoins.

These side-chains are introducing Turing complete smart contracts.
Also RSK is not new, if I'm not mistaken it used to be an altcoin back in 2013 and then they took the idea and turned it into the concept RootStock RSK in 2014-2015 and the chain launched in 2018. None of it has anything to do with Taproot though.

Bitcoin's limited scripting language cannot be used to create complex smart contracts like AMMs and tokens (such as ETH's ERC-20 tokens). What I meant was BTC's ability to become a "Turing-complete" smart contracts platforms like Ethereum. With the aforementioned sidechains, it is now possible. This won't affect Bitcoin's level of security because everything happens "off-chain" (on a separate network).

I sure hope developers don't integrate smart contracts into the main blockchain, or it will be complete disaster for Bitcoin. Consider how ETH is having trouble with the ultra-high fees, flaws/vulnerabilities from smart contracts, and slow processing times. I believe BTC should only be used for financial applications (sending/receiving payments) for its own good. Ultimately, the community will decide the best path forward for the project. As long as decentralization/censorship-resistance is preserved, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my opinion

[joniboini]

What I meant was BTC's ability to become a "Turing-complete" smart contracts platforms like Ethereum. With the aforementioned sidechains, it is now possible. This won't affect Bitcoin's level of security because everything happens "off-chain" (on a separate network).

It sounds like you're talking about anchoring on the Bitcoin blockchain. To be honest, I've heard similar discussions in the past, although it is not focused on smart contract platforms but just altcoin anchoring. I'm also on the neutral side, if anchoring is the goal I don't think it will affect any security or fees. It is difficult to encourage users to use smart contracts if it is difficult to use or understand/verify though. At the end of the day, any spammy projects will likely die since their users will need to pump out a lot of fees, just like what happened to ordinal. CMIIW.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

But even better because of the BTC blockchain's higher level of security.

What do you think? Is it a good idea for Bitcoin to have smart contract features? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Bitcoin blockchain has a better level of security because it is decentralized, not centralized like Ethereum. It can not be manipulated by a person, a group or core members, to vote then decide rollback the blockchain (Ethereum did it after their DAO hack).

Manipulation can be from a core team or by a hack to own enough power on the network but with Bitcoin, it is impossible.

From Ordinal BRC20 tokens, I see they are harmful for Bitcoin network and I am against Smart contracts even with side chain to bind them with Bitcoin. If anyone wants smart contract, pick Ethereum or many potential scam altcoin projects.

[Dave1]

To be clear Bitcoin has had smart contracts from day one. In fact Satoshi introduced this way of using Smart Contracts when he created Bitcoin then others expanded it in their altcoins.

These side-chains are introducing Turing complete smart contracts.
Also RSK is not new, if I'm not mistaken it used to be an altcoin back in 2013 and then they took the idea and turned it into the concept RootStock RSK in 2014-2015 and the chain launched in 2018. None of it has anything to do with Taproot though.

I sure hope developers don't integrate smart contracts into the main blockchain, or it will be complete disaster for Bitcoin. Consider how ETH is having trouble with the ultra-high fees, flaws/vulnerabilities from smart contracts, and slow processing times. I believe BTC should only be used for financial applications (sending/receiving payments) for its own good. Ultimately, the community will decide the best path forward for the project. As long as decentralization/censorship-resistance is preserved, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my opinion

I think this might be what the majority here doesn't want to happen, you can't imagine bitcoin being integrate smart contracts as it might lose everything it got since the beginning and this is what we are against, even the word Smart Contracts + Bitcoin will not go in the same sentence, 

But for now, maybe bitcoin enthusiast are going 50/50, and see how it will goes. It if affected the main chain by any chance, then all the blame are going to be put on this smart contracts and whatnot, just saying.

[adaseb]

Yeah root stock was suppose to be big for bitcoin and now you barely here of it. I think what happened was that after those huge BTC fees of 2017, many people just started to use ETH and stablecoins instead of bitcoin for their casual transactions. They kept bitcoin in cold storage long term. Try forgot about sending any type of small payments with bitcoin, just like me.

Then the same problem happened with ETH and ETH got worse than bitcoin at times. So we started to use L2 and we are pretty much here but right now ETH and BTC networks are full anymore and transactions are cheap again. So until we get more real transactions on the network I don’t think many people will switch to these newer type of l2 like root stock.

[mindrust]

Depends. If this new feature will make the network unusable then I don’t think we need it. However as far as I know, RSK works offchain (or it used to be) so RSK won’t affect the network in a bae way unless something has changed. On the other hand if bitcoin mimics eth, this means eth made the right moves way earlier than btc. There was a time when btc didn’t want to become like eth. At that time I thought eth was making a mistake addi all those features to their network. Since btc is now trying to follow the same path, it seems to eth was doing the right thing… However right and wrong can easily switch places nowadays. If all those features cause a fatal bug on eth, we will probably thank btc for its simplicity.

[Jawhead999]

You're pretty much talking about BRC-20 tokens where this tokens are caused Bitcoin network congestion.

RSK, Stacks, Omni layer, Counterparty etc are just different name of side chains, people can use these network for their tokens, but they choose the hype one e.g. Bitcoin network. It's useless to advice people to use those chains than the hype one because they know people will not interested.

[Abiky]

Yeah root stock was suppose to be big for bitcoin and now you barely here of it. I think what happened was that after those huge BTC fees of 2017, many people just started to use ETH and stablecoins instead of bitcoin for their casual transactions. They kept bitcoin in cold storage long term. Try forgot about sending any type of small payments with bitcoin, just like me.

Then the same problem happened with ETH and ETH got worse than bitcoin at times. So we started to use L2 and we are pretty much here but right now ETH and BTC networks are full anymore and transactions are cheap again. So until we get more real transactions on the network I don’t think many people will switch to these newer type of l2 like root stock.

I guess that's because there's not much interest in BTC-based smart contracts. All of the attention is on Ethereum and the likes. Good for Bitcoin, because it was never meant to be an "All-in-one Blockchain platform". More features = greater security risks. But there's nothing we can do about this if the community gives their approval. After all, Bitcoin is decentralized and open source.

Between Stacks and Rootstock (RSK), I think the latter will prevail in the long run (it's been around for quite a few years). RSK is based on the EVM, so developers could easily port ETH smart contracts into Bitcoin. I wonder how this will work when BTC's supply is extremely-limited? The future is quite unpredictable, so expect the unexpected. Just my opinion

[OcTradism]

I guess that's because there's not much interest in BTC-based smart contracts. All of the attention is on Ethereum and the likes.

Are they really smart contracts because many hacks successfully done by hackers against Smart contracts.

Good for Bitcoin, because it was never meant to be an "All-in-one Blockchain platform".

Bitcoin was not designed as an "All-in-one blockchain" but fortunately, it does not have excessive hacks like Smart Contracts. Hackers can hack Smart Contracts on Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, Harmony chain and more altcoin chains but they have never successfully hacked Bitcoin blokchain.

More features = greater security risks. But there's nothing we can do about this if the community gives their approval. After all, Bitcoin is decentralized and open source.

Thanks god because Bitcoin is decentralized and open source and community will be against smart contracts on Bitcoin blockchain. The unique blockchain must be different than altcoin blockchains that want to surpass Bitcoin blockchain but can not achieve a same security level like Bitcoin blockchain.

[pooya87]

I guess that's because there's not much interest in BTC-based smart contracts. All of the attention is on Ethereum and the likes.

Are they really smart contracts because many hacks successfully done by hackers against Smart contracts.

Technically even the flawed and broken ones are smart contracts.

It is also not about the interest in the platform these smart contracts would run on, it is all about the interest in the tokens they create. As I've said many times tokens are useless ergo there is no interest in them. People want to make money from their pump and dumps so when they get more pumped and dumped on Ethereum compared to RSK they would go to Ethereum regardless of how centralized mutable and broken it is.

In other words even if RSK were the most fantastic decentralized smart contract platform in history, people would still stick to shitplatforms like Ethereum because the pump and dump potential there is a lot higher.

[OcTradism]

Technically even the flawed and broken ones are smart contracts.

Thank you for answering about smart contracts which are not smart at all. About security, they are garbage with their bad hack history.

With those smart contract platforms, when they have a big upgrade for their protocol, their users must be very careful and should convert those coins and tokens to Bitcoin. Because big risk that after their big upgrade, their blockchains will have big holes for hackers to exploit.

Prevention is better than cure, safety first so I am seriously advice Smart contract enthusiasts about that.

[Flexystar]

Definitely not a good idea. It will burden the blockchain and it will impact on the Bitcoin transactions.

Have we forgotten about the Ordinals that are allowing users to mint the NFT directly on the Bitcoin Blockchain and what a mess it caused during the initial days? Imagine adding more smart contracts to it, instead of helping out Bitcoin we would end up screwing up Bitcoin's work structure and also the economic structure.

I think what we have at our hands is far better than what would we develop. I think in the past we also tried to fork it, nothing happened!

[Abiky]

Technically even the flawed and broken ones are smart contracts.

It is also not about the interest in the platform these smart contracts would run on, it is all about the interest in the tokens they create. As I've said many times tokens are useless ergo there is no interest in them. People want to make money from their pump and dumps so when they get more pumped and dumped on Ethereum compared to RSK they would go to Ethereum regardless of how centralized mutable and broken it is.

In other words even if RSK were the most fantastic decentralized smart contract platform in history, people would still stick to shitplatforms like Ethereum because the pump and dump potential there is a lot higher.

Exactly. Most people don't care about decentralization these days. All they want is to make money from crypto within the shortest time possible. It's all a matter of what's most convenient for them. I'm afraid Bitcoin-based smart contracts will remain a "niche" used only by a small few (particularly academics & tech enthusiasts). The vast majority of people will use centralized smart contract platforms like Ethereum and BSC. This is good for Bitcoin, because it will drive away "scam projects" and "shitcoins" (tokens) elsewhere.

If BTC were to be used heavily like ETH, fees would become utterly-expensive. Not to mention, transaction confirmation times will be even slower. Projects like RSK and Stacks are sidechains, so the impact on fees and confirmation times will be minimal. As long as everything stays "off-chain", there should be nothing to worry about. Who knows what the next big thing on Bitcoin will be? Just my thoughts

[Yamane_Keto]

You cannot prevent anyone from abusing the use of the space available in the blockchain, but given that this space is driven and not free, I do not think that Bitcoin sidechain will be just as cheap as in Ethereum, all enthusiasm for these projects is a waste of time unless the fees are much cheaper than the Ethereum, which may not happen soon .
This reminds me of OMNI layer, which has become most of wallets does not support USDT OMNI layer.