Thinking about Bitcoin 2.0

Previous topic - Next topic


Liked this post:

Also Gavin outlines Bitcoin 2.0 without ethereum:
    --- > Even though, just like python may be easier to program than C++ with the trade off with speed etc., ethereum's    solidity/serpent may be easier for many developers to build a bitcoin 2.0 application. I was wondering, whether we can build a solidity/serpent type programming language that just gets converted to Bitcoin's Script. (Similaryly C---> Assembly, Java ---> Byte code)  => (NewSerpentLikeContractLanguage ---> Bitcoin Script)
    I was trying to read the "Turing completeness" of Script... and stumbled upon this comment in the post
        Nate Eldredge comments : "Which essentially reduces to what we have now. If the script you want has a loop that is guaranteed to finish within a certain number of instructions, you can unroll the loop into a straight-line script with a fixed number of instructions. Actually, as it stands, the number of instructions you execute, the number of bytes in the script, and the fee you pay, are all approximately proportional."  ---> this makes perfect sense.
   It seems to me all the features that solidity/serpent is providing for ethereum can be provided via another layer of programming right in bitcoin.



I enjoyed the insidebitcoins post, but it did not extend the points it made about fragmentation to the domain of money. IE, fragmentation may indeed be a helpful way of exploring a new technology, but that doesn't have anything to do with "one cryptocurrency". There is silo-ing in industry all the time, but people don't stop using the USD or English or Bluetooth. Nothing in the article suggested that all of these viable projects wouldn't be sidechains using BTC exclusively ("one cryptocurrency").

I posted about Gavin and his "majority of trustable oracles" here:,92.0.html

I continue to believe that people will be shocked at how few use-cases there are for Ethereum. I agree that, mostly, if people really wanted a smart contract, they could have built one using alt-chain is required if one needs to keep track of a new unit (Truthcoin's VoteCoins, or shares).

I think @zack was theorizing about using payment channels to do smart contracts.
Nullius In Verba


I think Ethereum will be appealing for creating smart contract easily, quickly, with less effort if Ethereum network itself can keep its promise. But if Ethereum itself can't provide security, then all on top of it are bound to fail. Gavin also pointed out that Ethereum may "forever play whack-a-mole with security" with the added complexity. And they really invented the same wheel again.
But I am taking Ethereum seriously really because of the ease of use they may give to developers unless counterparty/others put same amount of effort for documentation, programming platform etc. If you look at the Ethereum forum, people are thinking about different Dapps/Applications/contracts on top of ethereum. So I am not sure about "few use cases". Probably all those Daaps won't be that useful - up to the high bar you are putting. But how many apps on the google store, itunes store are useful, do you think? Majority are crap.. But developers build for fun and people use crappy apps indeed generating revineues.
  I think Ethereum team are honestly trying to resolve all the issues and truly may come out as they desired to.  However, they may fail. But don't you think failed projects are also important for future invention? I know now you will say that those failed efforts/money could have been truly used in bolstering bitcoin rather when we already know the weakness. And that's what makes you loud, I guess!! But it's people's choice. Hope for the best.