全 47 件のコメント

[–]bobthesponge1 [スコア非表示]  (17子コメント)

Bitcoin's smart contracts are going to be 10x smarter than Ethereum's.

Edit: RIP Ether

[–]untried_captain [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Better looking, too.

[–]petskup [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

and sexy as hell ;)

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[removed]

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–]oadehtredditor for 7 days [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      We have the best smart contracts, don't we love our smart contracts?

      [–]manginahunter [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

      Even if it was only 1x smarter, Bitcoin would still better because ETH have tail emission (inflation) thus diluting it's value till perpetuity.

      [–]hhtoavonredditor for 3 months [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      It's going to be HUGE, and use the best words.

      [–]lucasjkr [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      They're going to be great. So great. So great, I can't even say, buy, you know...

      [–]numun_redditor for 3 months [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      I'll tell you what; the smart contracts just got 10x smarter.

      [–]pazdan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Unfortunately ETH got first mover advantage on this. Edit: more accurate: first publicity around it with the dao

      [–]bell2366 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

      This is the model going forward, alt coins innovate, Bitcoin adopts to bring critical mass.

      [–]NervousNorbert [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Must suck to be an altcoin developer these days. You start out thinking you can take over the world, but gradually you realize you're just Bitcoin's research laboratory.

      [–]deadleg22 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Adopt BOINC like gridcoin and stop wasting computational power on solving a useless algorithm.

      [–]riplin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      The algorithm is useless for a reason. If the computation being performed is useful in any other way, it could in the future be possible that the computation itself is worth more than the payoff for publishing it to secure Bitcoin. In that case Bitcoin's blockchain growth comes to a screeching halt instantly.

      [–]Cowboy_Coder [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      Are contracts not already possible on the Bitcoin blockchain by using Counterparty?

      [–]cantonbecker [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      I'm also curious about this. I'd like to know what the differences are between Rootstock and Counterparty, esp. since Counterparty has been in the game for a very long time now and appears to be a pretty mature system.

      [–]Cowboy_Coder [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      I'm guessing transaction cost might be a difference. Counterparty transactions are all on-chain, so incur bitcoin transaction fees. This Rootstock article mentions side chains, so I assume transactional costs might be cheaper.

      [–]belcher_ [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      [–]sharperguy [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      The language may be Turing complete in theory, but since the system must guarantee that all scripts terminate in finite time (I think they do it by requiring that each instruction has a cost) it is not Turing complete in practice.

      Umm well eventually all computers get turned off, so by that definition then no computer is ever Turing complete.

      [–]sQtWLgK [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Smart contracts in a public ledger system are a predicate-- Bitcoin's creator understood this. They take input-- about the transaction, and perhaps the chain-- and they accept or reject the update to the system. The network of thousands of nodes all around the world doesn't give a darn about the particulars of the computation, they care only that it was accepted. The transaction is free to provide arbitrary side information to help it make its decision.

      Deciding if an arbitrarily complex condition was met doesn't require a turing complete language or what not-- the verification of a is in P not NP.

      In Bitcoin Script, we do use straight up 'computation' to answer these questions; because that is the simplest thing to do, and for trivial rule sets, acceptably efficient. But when we think about complex rule-- having thousands and thousands of computers all around the world replicate the exact same computation becomes obviously ludicrous, it just doesn't scale.

      Fortunately, we're not limited to the non-scalablity-- and non-privacy-- of making the public network repeat computation just to verify it. All we have to do is reconize that computation wasn't what we were doing from the very beginning, verification was!

      [–]Essexal [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Bitcoin will still be a thing by year end.

      [–]romerun [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      Rootstock is done by year end but when will sidechain where it has to live on be useable ?

      [–]sumBTC [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      An Ethereum pre-mined contract doesn't look smart on you to begin with.

      [–]themattt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      did anyone that upvoted this actually read the article? this is clickbait at best and desperation at worse.

      [–]CBergmann [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      they forgot to explain that you have to give your bitcoins to a commitee of "trusted" people to access the sidechain that is secured by merged mining ...

      [–]joseph_miller [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      I don't have any deep knowledge about Ethereum, but are you not dubious about the benefits of a universal computer applied to the consensus algorithm behind bitcoin?

      I used to run a bitcoin full node and could trust that it wouldn't steal all my coins. Forcing anyone who wants to run a full node to also run someone else's arbitrary computation on their computer doesn't worry you? To be clear, I don't totally know how Ethereum works.

      But a more serious concern is how hard it is to prove that a universal computer slash digital cash system is even unbreakable. The game-theoretic implications are incomprehensible (at least to me, and possibly to everyone).

      Sidechains are firewalled. If you want to risk a systemic failure, do it there.

      [–]onthefrynge [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Current proposed decentralized sidechain methods are not available in bitcoin at this time, so a federated peg (requiring trust) is the only way. Rootstock is planning to migrate to OP_CHECK_VOTES_VERIFY or OP_WITHDRAWALPROOFVERIFY+OP_REORGPROOFVERIFY if either of these become available to provide a decentralized 2-way peg.

      When decentralized sidechains become a reality it is going blow everyone's minds.

      Patience Grasshoppa.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_0GxYU3SFc

      [–]onetrickwolf [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      This is reminding me of the whole "sidechains are out RIP altcoins!" thing...

      Just annoying that people see alts as "competition" to Bitcoin and they over hype anything that brings their doom.

      I think Eth has been a monumental contribution to the crypto community. It is teaching us so much about programmable contracts that we have been waiting for, for years. Eth being out will improve Bitcoin's contracts almost certainly.

      Things can coexist people and you don't have to worry about a "better" tech coming along to dethrone Bitcoin. Bitcoin hasn't been the best tech for some time, but it remains dominant because of the infrastructure built around it and the massive amount of support.

      [–]ipooponallfours [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      But will Bitcoin solve its block size crisis by years end? Stay tuned.

      [–]drlsd [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      wohoo, I assume something like 0.07 contracts per second? :D

      [–]thieflar [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      You can execute as many as you want per second in Bitcoin.