On a first skim it looks like a bespoke blockchain that commits its state to the bitcoin blockchain to ensure finality. Seems kind of neat, but I wouldn't call it "smart contracts on bitcoin".
From day one Bitcoin was designed to have low or no fees, it is only because Blockstream was able to wrestle control of the GitHub repo and stop the block size increase arbitrarily that high fees exists.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) long ago took over the "Bitcoin" project as designed by Satoshi Nakamoto and described in his White Paper. Bitcoin Core (BTC) is a broken system designed to enrich developers of "Second Layer" solutions like this.
BTC has failed completely as Peer-to-Peer Digital Cash and today is push only by charlatans and scammers.
How are miners supposed to be compensated, given that the block reward halves every few years?
>because Blockstream was able to wrestle control of the GitHub repo
Can you rebut these counter-claims made by one of the Core devs? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25566420
>is a broken system designed to enrich developers of "Second Layer" solutions like this.
How are those developers being enriched? Lightning is free and open source.
A solved problem by Satoshi. The block reward covers miners expenses for the next 100 years or so, THEN, once the block size is large enough and transactions are in the millions, a fee of a few cents per transaction replaces the block reward.
> Can you rebut these counter-claims made by one of the Core devs?
Yes, easily. This article [1] shows what I am saying, Core devs are funded by Blockstream. [2] Greg Maxwell (nullc) is, "a very dangerous individual whose [actions] speak for themselves". Just read about his past, he is a master social engineer and manipulator.
[1] https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/60250/bitcoin-developm...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admin...
> How are those developers being enriched? Lightning is free and open source.
Lightning does not work. It is a centralized "solution" to a decentralized problem. Sure, anyone can make a central database, hold Bitcoin and trade them, that is just an exchange, that is what Lightning is. What Blockstream is selling is not Lightning, their product is called Liquid.
You clearly didn't read the linked comment because the article doesn't have anything to do with the arguments presented.
>Lightning does not work. It is a centralized "solution" to a decentralized problem. Sure, anyone can make a central database, hold Bitcoin and trade them, that is just an exchange, that is what Lightning is.
How is lightning centralized? You can transact with anyone you want, and you maintain a "tab" with them, which can ultimately be settled up on the blockchain. You can also route payments to anyone else on the network.
>What Blockstream is selling is not Lightning, their product is called Liquid.
Okay, how are they monetizing it?
No, it does not. It becomes insignificant in just a few decades (getting 32x smaller every 20 years). So a constant backlog of high fee paying transaction is important to long term security [1].
Lol, I think we all just learned everything we need to know about your POV.
https://taaalk.co/t/bitcoin-maxima-other-crypto-things
Transactions need to be expensive, like the guy you were replying to said. It is beyond obvious.
Bitcoin SV (BSV) long ago took over the "Bitcoin" project as designed by Satoshi Nakamoto and described in his White Paper.
Clarity contracts have direct visibility into Bitcoin state and can write logic against that.
The only practical application I can think of is atomic swaps, which can be accomplished any number of other, easier ways.
Just asking because, again, the value proposition in practical terms is a little unclear to me.
This would be paired with a STX-collateralized service that would ultimately let you trade your xBTC back for BTC. The service would put STX up as collateral, which would be depleted if the service quality degrades. The Clarity contract for the collateral would track the service's xBTC to BTC transfers, and would allow the service to post the BTC transactions it sends as proof of good service quality (thereby staving off depletion).
Other ideas come to mind:
* Proof of (attempted) mining a STX block. A Blockstack app could use a Clarity contract to determine if a user was also a miner, and offer them in-app perks for helping to secure the network.
* Backwards-compatibility with BNS 1.0. Stacks 1.0 implemented a naming service (BNS) on Bitcoin, and Clarity's access to Bitcoin state can be leveraged to allow users to prove that they are OGs -- i.e. that they registered a BNS name before Stacks 2.0 went live (or did something specific with it, like updated it to have a particular owner or have a particular content hash).
* Proof of payment to a particular address. Many organizations, including open-source projects, take BTC for donations. A Clarity contract could be written to identify Stacks users who donated to a particular organization earlier.
* Proof of payment channel. You could demonstrate to a Clarity contract that you have opened a payment channel with a particular amount to a particular address, and post collateral that will be slashed if your payment channel closed before a particular Bitcoin block height.
[1] https://docs.matic.network/docs/contribute/matic-architectur...
The market can bear committing states to the bitcoin blockchain, and there hasn't been a standardized way to do that. I would therefore call it smart contracts on bitcoin.