Bitcoin needs Ethereum VM to reach its full potential — Web3 exec

[BlackBoss_]

Mainstream Bitcoin adoption won’t happen until it bridges to the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) — the first point of entry for many real-world assets moving on-chain, a Web3 executive argues.[/i]

Bitcoin blockchain has lower average transaction fee (on-chain) than Ethereum blockchain, $1.22 compares to $1.55
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#alltime
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/ethereum-transactionfees.html#alltime

Two charts also show Ethereum blockchain has more spikes (more expensive) in average transaction fee than Bitcoin blockchain.

Bitcoin Lightning Network has much lower transaction fee so if you need cheaper transaction fee, use Bitcoin Lightning Network. Ethereum blockchain is not cheaper so it is not a good choice.

Transaction Fees On Bitcoin Lightning Network Are 1,000 Times Cheaper Than Visa And MasterCard

[larry_vw_1955]

it doesnt sound like LN in practice. because LN FAILS many security and economic integrity checks in those area's. why do you think they are inventing so many SaaS, factory channels, watchtowers and other centralised hubs renting inbound liquidity to cover up the lack in secure signature control of funds..
yes it sounds like SOME of the ideas from 6years ago with promises spouted about LN maybe achieving those ideals,, but LN failed to meet promises, hense needing them to scrap the network which devs admit they cant fix the flaws of, and instead start afresh in a different manner that actually does things securely

LN sounds more complicated than bitcoin itself. imagine that! the thing that confuses me about LN is why should something or how could something built on top of something else be more complicated than the thing it is being built on top of. that seems like incorrect design and structure. the thing that serves as the base should be the more complicated thing. but with LN on top of BTC, i dont think it is. its actually reversed which is not good but what are you gonna do?  

not all subetworks need to have a "archive forever" chain, some could have it where it blockchans for 6 months and at the 6th month they data is agregated into a utxoset and at the 12th month milestone they hash the 6th month utxoset as a milestoned history and then prune the 6 month chain and just keep a utxoset of those 6thmonths. then repeat process every 6 months so that there is only 6 months of archive chain and a ball of utxo's as a preimage of the rest of history at Xmonth previous state

wouldn't that also be a solution to BTC's growing blockchain size to keep it trimmed down to a max level? if not then i'm not sure how it could be a solution there either. but i think it goes back to the issue of you can't have something more complex built on top of something simpler. that's reversed design.

as for different niches
EG starbucks can have its own customer network. offering its giftcard balance system and loyalty points

hold that thought!

whereby instead of locking all funds into one crappy subnetwork and then splintering off all balance into multiple channels of that one crappy subnetwork.

but at least they can send bitcoin to anyone for anything. and buy anything that bitcoin can buy, including coffee.

people lock funds into several networks before entering the networks and then having balance in different networks, doing different things

that's not what people want to do though. lock some of their funds into a starbucks network and some of it in a mcdonalds network and so on. then when some amazing pizza deal comes along they can't do it because their bitcoin is locked into the wrong networks.  

and have true atomic swaps between networks, which even LN after 6 years cant manage to fix at scale even within their own network

i would imagine atomic swaps are not free and you probably get raked over the coals in transaction fees in some cases. but if your ideal view of things includes free atomic swaps then maybe...

[franky1]

it doesnt sound like LN in practice. because LN FAILS many security and economic integrity checks in those area's. why do you think they are inventing so many SaaS, factory channels, watchtowers and other centralised hubs renting inbound liquidity to cover up the lack in secure signature control of funds..
yes it sounds like SOME of the ideas from 6years ago with promises spouted about LN maybe achieving those ideals,, but LN failed to meet promises, hense needing them to scrap the network which devs admit they cant fix the flaws of, and instead start afresh in a different manner that actually does things securely

LN sounds more complicated than bitcoin itself. imagine that! the thing that confuses me about LN is why should something or how could something built on top of something else be more complicated than the thing it is being built on top of. that seems like incorrect design and structure. the thing that serves as the base should be the more complicated thing. but with LN on top of BTC, i dont think it is. its actually reversed which is not good but what are you gonna do?  

LN fundamentally is not complex. .. infact there are soo many simplistic things to it, it has become rife with bugs/flaws and methods to scam other people
its instead MADE TO BE complex for users, to make it LOOK technical
its instead MADE TO BE complex to sucker people into handing BTC to server and then be rented some msats for a session.. its MADE to be complex to lease out a watchtower service.. its MADE to be complex to sucker people into using their proprietary litewallets
do you really think these LN lovers who sponsored core devs, done it out of charity/altruism.. no. its so they can get ROI out of syphoning funds from users that use it..
blockstream did not get hundreds of millions in donations. they received investments from corporations. corporations that will make their money back if they can sucker users to use their prefered middlemen services and move away from using the open bitcoin network

not all subetworks need to have a "archive forever" chain, some could have it where it blockchans for 6 months and at the 6th month they data is agregated into a utxoset and at the 12th month milestone they hash the 6th month utxoset as a milestoned history and then prune the 6 month chain and just keep a utxoset of those 6thmonths. then repeat process every 6 months so that there is only 6 months of archive chain and a ball of utxo's as a preimage of the rest of history at Xmonth previous state

wouldn't that also be a solution to BTC's growing blockchain size to keep it trimmed down to a max level? if not then i'm not sure how it could be a solution there either. but i think it goes back to the issue of you can't have something more complex built on top of something simpler. that's reversed design.

well it can be made possible that one of the coinbase outputs is a hash of a utxoset and for 6 months each block contains that hash of a milstone point before generating a new hash for the next milestone . and then by having 6months of the hash proving a fileset of utxos. then users can just download that fileset, make sure it matches the hashes which have confirmed for a length of time and so dont need the full blockchain previous

as for different niches
EG starbucks can have its own customer network. offering its giftcard balance system and loyalty points

hold that thought!

whereby instead of locking all funds into one crappy subnetwork and then splintering off all balance into multiple channels of that one crappy subnetwork.

but at least they can send bitcoin to anyone for anything. and buy anything that bitcoin can buy, including coffee.

people lock funds into several networks before entering the networks and then having balance in different networks, doing different things

that's not what people want to do though. lock some of their funds into a starbucks network and some of it in a mcdonalds network and so on. then when some amazing pizza deal comes along they can't do it because their bitcoin is locked into the wrong networks.  

you do know most LN channels end up serving only one avenue/path of a service where using a different channel to pay a certain service comes with different costs.. so users usually just rebalance to put value into which ever channels they intend to spend the most with, with whichever service they use the most
EG if they mainly pay into exchanges they put most funds into a LN channel that has the cheapest path to an exchange. and not put funds into a expensive path to an exchange. .. and if they want to buy coffee they put coffee amounts of a month budget into the channel thats cheaper to reach the starbucks channel
taking that one step further why need to put all funds into a LN lock and then distribute to preferred/unpreferred channels in that one network. when you can do the same balance/account utility matching over different networks, thus not subservient to one crappy network that doesnt like you closing channels

and have true atomic swaps between networks, which even LN after 6 years cant manage to fix at scale even within their own network

i would imagine atomic swaps are not free and you probably get raked over the coals in transaction fees in some cases. but if your ideal view of things includes free atomic swaps then maybe...

imagine atomic swaps as decentralised exchanges(dex) then run some thoughts through some scenarios

hint: if A wants to swap his locked LTC for B's locked BTC then the EXCHANGE RATE would be rated to cover fees

[FinneysTrueVision]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-needs-ethereum-evm-botanix-founder

Botanix Labs founder Willem Schroé argues a “huge amount of value” from real-world assets will be captured on Bitcoin, provided it connects to the Ethereum Virtual Machine.

Mainstream Bitcoin adoption won’t happen until it bridges to the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) — the first point of entry for many real-world assets moving on-chain, a Web3 executive argues.

If that's true then it doesn't look for bitcoin. Might as well invest in ethereum...

Ethereum has even less mainstream adoption than Bitcoin. Complex computations are possible on Bitcoin with BitVM. Bitcoin doesn't really need to be a world computer at the base layer.

Spiderchain, which this guy is promoting, is a layer 2 which doesn't require a fork. He is free to work on this EVM bridge but like with ETH and all of its clones I expect it to attract many scammers and junk projects.

[DooMAD]

how could something built on top of something else be more complicated than the thing it is being built on top of. that seems like incorrect design and structure. the thing that serves as the base should be the more complicated thing.

In construction and architecture, the foundations of a building are generally less intricate or elaborate than whatever structure is built upon it.  Simple and robust foundations means there's less that can go wrong.  Particularly with software and networking.  That's considered good design.

And as for the topic as a whole, people have been claiming for years now that Bitcoin supposedly needs X, Y or Z feature to be considered a success.  But these people are usually just trying to sell something and pretend that their feature is actually useful.  Some ideas are merely a "solution looking for a problem to solve".


//EDIT:  I guess franky1 got tired of making shit up in the recent LN thread.  Now he's here to lie some more in this topic.  Dishonest troll.

[franky1]

And as for the topic as a whole, people have been claiming for years now that Bitcoin supposedly needs X, Y or Z feature to be considered a success.  But these people are usually just trying to sell something and pretend that their feature is actually useful.  Some ideas are merely a "solution looking for a problem to solve".

doomad talking about himself. he loves promoting other things as solutions even when the things he promotes have and cause more problems

[KiaKia]

It's hard for many people to accept gbs fact that Bitcoin can't be everything, this is why I am investing in other projects as well, Bitcoin is good as it is and doing more can open the door to centralized manipulation, I believe that is Ethereum was never a smart contract project and just have one thing, in particular, it will still be a successful project and I started hating on it when the team decides to leave proof of work for PoS, that's when I accepted that Ethereum is now fully centralized.

I honestly don't like how Bitcoin Ordinals are running on Bitcoin still, the BRC-20 idea is never meant to be live, I am just waiting for the bull market to prove some people wrong that having Ordinals on Bitcoin is a very bad idea, don't get me wrong, I like new ideas and if Ordinals become successful in the next bull market you will see how it will be near impossible to do any Bitcoin transaction for a long period until the Ordinals isn't hyping anymore.

Bitcoin is good just the way it is and it's purpose is to be a decentralized network that people can trust, it's less of a payment solution to me, it's useful for payment options too but the main goal was decentralization.

[goldkingcoiner]

I think that Bitcoin is fitting in its role of being a decentralized store of value quite nicely. There is no need to to turn Bitcoin into another Ethereum alternative. Not only would that destabilize the trust and value of Bitcoin, it would lead a large part of the community to give up, after many years, on Bitcoin. The only possible reason for updating Bitcoin is to improve existing aspects rather than to redraw the entire concept.

Bitcoin concept has not led us wrong after all these years, so why change things that are not broken?

[popcorngolf]

ether Need a Supply Cap .

[larry_vw_1955]

In construction and architecture, the foundations of a building are generally less intricate or elaborate than whatever structure is built upon it.  Simple and robust foundations means there's less that can go wrong.  Particularly with software and networking.  That's considered good design.

maybe that's true. i understand that something like TCPIP is not as complicated as something like ChatGPT. But chatgpt couldn't function without the internet. But with regard to LN and Bitcoin, you got something that feels like its trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Bitcoin wasn't invented with LN in mind. People tried to adapt some features of Bitcoin to create LN but i'm not sure if all those features were enough to make it work perfectly. ChatGPT didn't suffer any limitations due to TCPIP. Then you get into the Millineium Tower.

that's what happens when the foundation isnt really sufficient to support what people are trying to build on it:  

San Francisco ‘Leaning Tower’ residents forced to pay $6.8M for failed fix
https://nypost.com/2023/10/03/san-francisco-leaning-tower-residents-forced-to-pay-6-8m-for-failed-fix/

Having go back and fix the foundation so it can support what you thought it could support but were wrong...

And as for the topic as a whole, people have been claiming for years now that Bitcoin supposedly needs X, Y or Z feature to be considered a success.  But these people are usually just trying to sell something and pretend that their feature is actually useful.  Some ideas are merely a "solution looking for a problem to solve".

I'm sure that's what spiderchain is. No one out there that i know of is sitting around waiting for spiderchain to exist.

LN fundamentally is not complex.

neither is artificial intelligence fundamentally. just make a machine behave like a human. the devil can be in all the little details.

.. infact there are soo many simplistic things to it, it has become rife with bugs/flaws and methods to scam other people
its instead MADE TO BE complex for users, to make it LOOK technical
its instead MADE TO BE complex to sucker people into handing BTC to server and then be rented some msats for a session.. its MADE to be complex to lease out a

i'm not sure it's "made to be" complex. i just thought it had to be complex otherwise it couldn't do what they wanted it to do. this whole conducting transactions "off chain" is the problematic issue. i don't know if there's a simple way of doing that. it certainly is not LN. the only off chain way i know of is to give someone your opendime. that happens off network but there is no 3rd party dependance going on.

watchtower service.. its MADE to be complex to sucker people into using their proprietary litewallets

i thought watchtower was to prevent one party from scamming the other one if one of them went offline accidentally. in any event, having to depend on a 3rd party or trusting the party you're transacting with doesn't sound like the most solid thing. i'm not so sure i would be wanting to use LN.

do you really think these LN lovers who sponsored core devs, done it out of charity/altruism.. no. its so they can get ROI out of syphoning funds from users that use it..

you mean transaction fees. yeah, those still happen on LN but i thought they were tiny and even free in some cases. could be wrong but why would someone use LN if their fees were not substantially lower per txn?

blockstream did not get hundreds of millions in donations. they received investments from corporations. corporations that will make their money back if they can sucker users to use their prefered middlemen services and move away from using the open bitcoin network

i dont want to be going through middlemen. that's like going through coinbase to send bitcoin. just as bad. but i guess people see benefits in lower txn fees so they are willing to trust watchtowers and pay small fees to the middlemen. what else could it be?

ether Need a Supply Cap .

i'm waiting for bitcoin to outpace ethereum in price since bitcoin's supply is having a hard cap.

[Woodie]

I agree with the Botanix Labs founder, Bitcoin might be the anchor crypto coin around here...but the EVMs do bring in some indirect traffic to Bitcoin thereby complimenting it's existence. Am pretty sure the man used a long cut in trying to bring out the point of dependance in the crypto ecosystem being the road to success aka no coin is an island 

Though of late EVMs have been terrible in the security department, hope this proposed bridging of the two doesn't make a bad name for BTC.

[davis196]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-needs-ethereum-evm-botanix-founder

Botanix Labs founder Willem Schroé argues a “huge amount of value” from real-world assets will be captured on Bitcoin, provided it connects to the Ethereum Virtual Machine.

Mainstream Bitcoin adoption won’t happen until it bridges to the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) — the first point of entry for many real-world assets moving on-chain, a Web3 executive argues.

If that's true then it doesn't look for bitcoin. Might as well invest in ethereum...

Maybe you should put this thread in the Altcoin Discussions forum.
What the hell is an Ethereum virtual machine? I'm not an expert on Ethereum and I don't care that much about all the "new innovations" in the ETH blockchain, that end up being used for scams(ICOs, NFTs, you name it). I Googled it and it seems that EVM is simply an environment for ETH smart contracts. So this guy is basically shilling the EVM by adding Bitcoin to the conversation. Bitcoin is doing just fine without ETH, smart contracts and all that sh*t. I'm sure that Bitcoin will be alright in the future without any fancy "improvements" involving smart contracts.
This "huge amount of value from real-world assets will be captured in Bitcoin, provided it connects to EVM" statement is total nonsense.
How do you "capture" the value of a real world asset in Bitcoin?

[franky1]

do you really think these LN lovers who sponsored core devs, done it out of charity/altruism.. no. its so they can get ROI out of syphoning funds from users that use it..

you mean transaction fees. yeah, those still happen on LN but i thought they were tiny and even free in some cases. could be wrong but why would someone use LN if their fees were not substantially lower per txn?

tiny and free ones are the hubs/leasing imbound balance channels of lite wallets,, think ofit as a trial promotion to sucker people in and then raise fees later

blockstream did not get hundreds of millions in donations. they received investments from corporations. corporations that will make their money back if they can sucker users to use their prefered middlemen services and move away from using the open bitcoin network

i dont want to be going through middlemen. that's like going through coinbase to send bitcoin. just as bad. but i guess people see benefits in lower txn fees so they are willing to trust watchtowers and pay small fees to the middlemen. what else could it be?

here is the thing though. bitcoin onchain fee's do not need to be high. the transactions per block onchain do not need to be low.. but when you look at these certain people that are promoting and adoring and defending defective subnetworks.. those same people are pushing a mantra that onchain fees need to be high and transactions per block need to be low, they also promote that no one should do anything about the spam meme bloat data that has nothing to do with bitcoin value transfer onchain.

the reason.
a. if they can make bitcoin onchain fees stupidly high, they can charge more offchain and people still call it a "discount"
(same bait and switch before, make legacy x4 to call segwit "discounted". even thought segwit fees were higher $ cost than legacy pre segwit activation)

b. if they can annoy bitcoiners to hate bitcoin and tell them the only solution is to f**k off to another network if not happy, instead of suggesting an onchain fix. they can sucker idiots into their favoured network and initially promote low fees on first few payments to lock them into trusting the channel and getting a few channel states in their favour then update settings of channel to increase fee's and only allow idiots to close channel when they have raided you of your value(many ways to achieve this, and shown to be done alot)

[larry_vw_1955]

What the hell is an Ethereum virtual machine?

it's like a computer that sits on the blockchain running different computer programs that people want it to run. now the thing is, if it fails when executing the code, in ethereum's case it consumes the transaction fee you paid (called gas). i hope with bitcoin it won't do that! to me that's kind of a scam when something steals your money but doesn't complete the transaction. and then you have to pay again/try again...

I'm not an expert on Ethereum

who is? ethereum is very complicated. way more complicated than bitcoin.

tiny and free ones are the hubs/leasing imbound balance channels of lite wallets,, think ofit as a trial promotion to sucker people in and then raise fees later

is that what really happens?  

here is the thing though. bitcoin onchain fee's do not need to be high. the transactions per block onchain do not need to be low..

i get that. but it happened because of ordinals.

but when you look at these certain people that are promoting and adoring and defending defective subnetworks.. those same people are pushing a mantra that onchain fees need to be high and transactions per block need to be low, they also promote that no one should do anything about the spam meme bloat data that has nothing to do with bitcoin value transfer onchain.

well not to turn this into a discussion about LN but if it really is defective you would think that all these other layer 2 projects would come up with something better. but i guess they're not working on that...but to me that's seems like a very important thing to work on. making transactions easier and cheaper. without involvng any 3rd party or chance of fraud.

they can sucker idiots into their favoured network and initially promote low fees on first few payments to lock them into trusting the channel and getting a few channel states in their favour then update settings of channel to increase fee's and only allow idiots to close channel when they have raided you of your value(many ways to achieve this, and shown to be done alot)

sounds like a classic bait and switch has that happened to people like at first their LN fee was only a satoshi and then it jumped to a million satoshis?  
 

[franky1]

tiny and free ones are the hubs/leasing imbound balance channels of lite wallets,, think ofit as a trial promotion to sucker people in and then raise fees later

is that what really happens?  

here is the thing though. bitcoin onchain fee's do not need to be high. the transactions per block onchain do not need to be low..

i get that. but it happened because of ordinals.

look at who invented ordinals and the projects he adores
look at the 5k liquidity and see that majority of it is locked into centralised services of channels that have been open for years.. usually independant people would regularly close channels and do other things where they have full control of their signing authority of the funds. yet most of the network is the idiots that are renting inbound balance of a channel that does not even give them signing authority(privatekey access)
and again look at who adores bitcoin fee rise(no one should) but for those that like large fees, look at the projects they adore

but when you look at these certain people that are promoting and adoring and defending defective subnetworks.. those same people are pushing a mantra that onchain fees need to be high and transactions per block need to be low, they also promote that no one should do anything about the spam meme bloat data that has nothing to do with bitcoin value transfer onchain.

well not to turn this into a discussion about LN but if it really is defective you would think that all these other layer 2 projects would come up with something better. but i guess they're not working on that...but to me that's seems like a very important thing to work on. making transactions easier and cheaper. without involvng any 3rd party or chance of fraud.

there are alot more then just 3 subnetwork bridges to bitcoin and many do things differently to how a certain subnetwork functions but have more liquidity than that certain subnetwork
however certain devs and theyre acolytes only promote a certain subnetwork which is why it "SEEMS" popular in discussion, even though in utility it is not. these certain devs were sponsored to make changes to code(pushing bait and switch features/annoyances) to push a certain subnetwork as the solution. they are handcuffed to an allegiance to a certain network due to the sponsorships.
but after 6 years its time to escape those handcuffs and maybe try something different. they need to get back to work on features that benefit bitcoin not the subnetwork
they already admit that certain flaws exist they cant bug fix, and instead are doing work arounds of needing centralised services.. so its not really meeting the fit for purpose promise they made 6 years ago..

they can sucker idiots into their favoured network and initially promote low fees on first few payments to lock them into trusting the channel and getting a few channel states in their favour then update settings of channel to increase fee's and only allow idiots to close channel when they have raided you of your value(many ways to achieve this, and shown to be done alot)

sounds like a classic bait and switch has that happened to people like at first their LN fee was only a satoshi and then it jumped to a million satoshis?  

once you start analysing and researching beyond the utopian fluffy promotions, you start to see alot more than just flaws, baiting and corruption

the reason some think that a ethereum backed subnetwork bridge to bitcoin is the only way is because the bitcoin dev group are soo entranced into pushing forward only certain subnetwork that they forgot to care about community needs and just sold their souls out to their sponsors. which is where this 6 years of headaches are happening. people are losing trust of core devs baited empty promises and think other outsider teams are needed to provide the features needed offchain
back in 2015-16 bitcoin community were looking for ways to keep fee's onchain under $0.05... the core roadmap of promises told the community the code changes would provide that.. well look at the fee's 2017+
also there is 4x more data allowance (something certain group objected to even 2mb of full utility) yet even with 4mb of bloat there is not 4x of tx count. nor are transaction leaner. the transactions are fatter then 2009-2016

[larry_vw_1955]

they already admit that certain flaws exist they cant bug fix, and instead are doing work arounds of needing centralised services.. so its not really meeting the fit for purpose promise they made 6 years ago..

well, as i had already said that LN does seem way overly complicated to such an extent that every so often you hear about some new vulnerability or bug or whatever you want to call it. Prime example from recently:


https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-October/021999.html

A lightning node allows HTLCs forwarding (in bolt3's parlance accepted HTLC
on incoming link and offered HTLC on outgoing link) should settle the
outgoing state with either a success or timeout before the incoming state
timelock becomes final and an asymmetric defavorable settlement might
happen (cf "Flood & Loot: A Systematic Attack on The Lightning Network"
section 2.3 for a classical exposition of this lightning security property).

Failure to satisfy this settlement requirement exposes a forwarding hop to
a loss of fund risk where the offered HTLC is spent by the outgoing link
counterparty's HTLC-preimage and the accepted HTLC is spent by the incoming
link counterparty's HTLC-timeout.

I may not be smart enough to understand the problem but i'm smart enough to know that it has some serious design issues if stuff like this keeps popping up. Bitcoin was just not meant for something like the lightning network. it doesn't have the functionality to allow off chain transactions i guess. trying to force those opens up all these issues. that just keep popping up. presumably they are only theoretical but still. it's ugly!

hopefully these things like bip-300 and this spiderchain will be much more elegant and maybe they would offer something similar to LN but without all the complicated setup and things.

back in 2015-16 bitcoin community were looking for ways to keep fee's onchain under $0.05... the core roadmap of promises told the community the code changes would provide that.. well look at the fee's 2017+

i mean i wish bitcoin fees could always be $0.05 for on-chain transactions. then i might find a use for it. but not if its going to cost $5. that's just me in my own opinion/situation/wishes. others could have their own.

[NotATether]

Mainstream Bitcoin adoption won’t happen until it bridges to the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) — the first point of entry for many real-world assets moving on-chain, a Web3 executive argues.[/i]

That's not going to happen because we don't need Ethereum.

On the other hand, we can devise a way to make smart contracts just fine without it. The only hold-up is how are we going to do this in a fast, secure and decentralized way. Though I'm pretty sure the decentralized part is pretty much guaranteed when you are extending Bitcoin's script system.

When ZK-proofs are finally used for network validation, perhaps a small sigops limit for scripts can be introduced along with some new opcodes for which this limit applies to, to remove some of the constraints of making a smart contract directly on Bitcoin, without using a federation of nodes like LN or Liquid. Enough space on the blockchain will be freed for nodes to store such data.

[larry_vw_1955]

That's not going to happen because we don't need Ethereum.

i dont know. someone must need ethereum otherwise they wouldn't have wrapped bitcoin. but if this is true then maybe we do need an alternative:

Schroé believes the current solutions involving wrapped Bitcoin on Ethereum and other EVM-compatible chains are problematic and argues they are susceptible to censorship and regulatory scrutiny, as they’re operated by the centralized United States-based company BitGo.

On the other hand, we can devise a way to make smart contracts just fine without it. The only hold-up is how are we going to do this in a fast, secure and decentralized way. Though I'm pretty sure the decentralized part is pretty much guaranteed when you are extending Bitcoin's script system.

but if they can't connect to ethereum, isn't that what people want is cross chain communication? if it's just in its own little world i don't know if it can be enough.

Schroé’s Botanix Labs aims to connect the Bitcoin and Ethereum ecosystems through its “Spiderchain” — a proof-of-stake layer 2 that implements EVM to EVM bridges to enable Bitcoin to interact with the EVM.

if bitcoin could be connected to ethereum more people would be using bitcoin i think. but i don't think the author of this article understood what spiderchain is. i don't think it is connecting anything. but i could be wrong. i'm just not sure.

[franky1]

if bitcoin could be connected to ethereum more people would be using bitcoin i think.

you do realise that bitcoin has its own community. and own market sentiment.
however if ethereum had its own larger community with its own market sentiment then ethereum would not shadow trace bitcoins price(90%+) of the time. because ethereum users would be doing other things with ether and choosing a different path/sentiment of demand..(different ups and downs on the market)

when you see ethereum basically just shadow traces the bitcoin market at a 1:14-1:19 ratio. it shows there is not an abundance of ethereum users making their own independent market decisions


so i do find it strange when you say it requires moving people away from bitcoin to use an ethereum based thing, will make bitcoin more popular..

because ethereums community is not as big as you think.. ethereums community and niche is hyped up. even its market is propelled only due to bitcoin.. not the other way round

its ethereum that wants a better bridge to bitcoin. not bitcoin needing a better bridge to ethereum

there can be bitcoin subnetworks (not the current hyped ones) in the future that are feature rich and meet the promises and needs of niche utility of thing like web3. but trying to pretend we need to pass bitcoiners over to ethereum mainnet fund control is a laugh,

[larry_vw_1955]

you do realise that bitcoin has its own community. and own market sentiment.
however if ethereum had its own larger community with its own market sentiment then ethereum would not shadow trace bitcoins price(90%+) of the time. because ethereum users would be doing other things with ether and choosing a different path/sentiment of demand..(different ups and downs on the market)

i don't know why crypto prices all rise and fall together. it's not just btc and eth, its everything else too but i always thought eth had a very large community. take a look:

https://ethereumworldnews.com/ethereum-surpasses-bitcoin-in-number-of-active-addresses/
 
that was a long time ago but has things really changed since then or maybe you don't believe the story is accurate.

because ethereums community is not as big as you think.. ethereums community and niche is hyped up. even its market is propelled only due to bitcoin.. not the other way round

well when we had the nft bandwagon and every known celebrity was plunking down hundreds of thousands of dollars in eth to buy a monkey i'm pretty sure they didn't care about bitcoin at all. maybe those people are now disillusioned about crypto because their nft devalued alot though. so maybe the bitcoin community is more steadfast and sticks around through the high and low times more than the eth community does.

its ethereum that wants a better bridge to bitcoin. not bitcoin needing a better bridge to ethereum

i don't know. i just know that WBTC is not a very good thing. there should be a decentralized alternative.

but trying to pretend we need to pass bitcoiners over to ethereum mainnet fund control is a laugh,

you never hear about wrapped eth on bitcoin. does such a thing even exist? i seriously doubt it. so that must mean that people using bitcoin want to use eth more than the other way around. not saying all of them do but maybe some of them do.