Let op: Tweakers stopt per 2023 met Tweakblogs. In dit artikel leggen we uit waarom we hiervoor hebben gekozen.

A clone of Ethereum with scaling improvements has just been launched on top of Bitcoin Cash.

By Kain_niaK on zondag 15 augustus 2021 11:21 - Comments (0)
Category: Cryptografisch geld, Views: 1.091

A clone of Ethereum with scaling improvements has just been launched on top of Bitcoin Cash. one billion gas every 15 seconds, DAO is coming soon. It's called Smart BCH and it allows any Ethereum dapp to be ported to BCH to take advantage of lower gas fees.

Vitalik his original idea was so build Ethereum on top of Bitcoin because he understood it would have been better for the ecosystem to have just ONE chain, instead many.


Unfortunately employees of a competing company called Blockstream that wanted to launch their own sidechain (liquid) made it clear to Vitalik if he dared build a competing product on Bitcoin they would sabotage him. These blockstream employees could do that because they control the Bitcoin github.

Here is some history written by u/insette:
Since 2012, I've witnessed the Bitcoin system devolve into what it is today: purportedly "gold 2.0". And I've watched helplessly as this perception of what Bitcoin is reached its current state through the will of special interest groups like the Blockstream company.

Over the years, I've grown accustomed to seeing the rest of the digital currency community simply look the other way about this, unphased by what is happening, no doubt because it benefits them financially.

To get specific, Greg Maxwell, Adam Back and the "usual suspects" of Bitcoin-land deliberately crippled Bitcoin's capacity on-chain, calling small blocks an essential quality of "digital gold". And because crippling Bitcoin's on-chain capacity was financially profitable for Blockstream's investors, and because it was also profitable for notable VCs with huge positions in Ethereum, we currently find ourselves in a Bizarro World version of digital currency that is heavily fragmented and fraught with legally dubious ICOs.

The current state of Bitcoin is one that is dominated by centralized exchanges, centralized developer groups, and most of all, an endless number of legally questionable ICOs that are merely following in the footsteps of Vitalik Buterin; footsteps which Vitalik Buterin never should've had to take in the first place.

And no one knows about this. No one cares. I look around and what do I see? Everyone it seems is wealthy, fat and happy. This current status quo is a pure dreamland, however, and it's ripe for disruption by Decred. But since the USP of Decred hinges upon having a complete understanding of Bitcoin's history, first thing's first:

In 2013, Company Zero (C0), which employs the current lead developers behind Decred, launched btcsuite to provide some much needed diversity in the market for Bitcoin full nodes. At the time of btcsuite's public debut, there was only one production quality implementation of Bitcoin, the now infamous Bitcoin Core. I believe Bitcoin Core was still called "Bitcoin" back then, with the Core word omitted, in part due to the total lack of viable competition for full nodes. For brevity, I'll refer to Bitcoin Core as "BC" from here on out.

Back in 2013, BC was the center of the digital currency universe, and the BC developers were kings of the cryptocurrency space.

There was a real sense Bitcoin was developed by only the *very best* developers, who had only the *very best* of intentions.

People thought BTC could do *everything*. That Bitcoin was *invincible*.

So strongly was this all felt that launching an altcoin in those days was nothing short of a *heretical act*. Altcoin promoters were frequently targeted for public shaming.

And during this short-lived stage of Bitcoin's history where BTC was king of digital currency, C0 decided to launch [btcsuite](https://github.com/btcsuite), after all what dominant internet protocol, such as Bitcoin, doesn't have *multiple implementations*? It seemed like a glaring fault in Bitcoin's fundamentals and C0 sought to address the shortcoming with btcsuite.

You'd think C0's open source work on btcsuite would be the sort of thing to receive great accolades all around. And it mostly did from the general software community. But from the outset, the BC developers *slammed* btcsuite for being "out of consensus" with their One True C++ codebase, BC. The BC developers advised miners and industry alike to steer clear of using it.

Now, if you know about the infamous 2013 BDB Bitcoin chain split, you'd realize how transparently ridiculous the BC developers were being with their "out of consensus" remarks here. In short, BC's own codebase fell out of consensus *with itself* in 2013, owing to different versions of the same software running on the network. The BDB chainsplit was a major event in Bitcoin-land; it briefly sent prices *tumbling*. See: post-mortem

IOW, the BC developers criticised C0's codebase for being "out of consensus", even though their own freaking codebase lost consensus *with itself*.

**And here's where things really spun out of control.**

Around this same time, another very contentious rift in Bitcoin-land started to form in the shadows. I say "shadows", because it didn't receive much media coverage, yet simultaneously we know today *hundreds of millions of dollars* were at stake. *This rift* was over the topic of "smart contracts".

You see, no one really knew for sure what path would be best for Bitcoin to tap into smart contracts. However, folks generally agreed blockchain-based smart contracts held significant promise. It was widely speculated innovations like:

- blockchain equities issuance
- blockchain options and futures trading
- blockchain prediction markets
- blockchain gambling, and
- blockchain real estate

... could be worth BILLIONS of dollars one day.

Many, many developers believed this was true, including the BC developers themselves.

This leads us up to January 2014, which is when Counterparty launched what I consider to be the first credible consensus system that enabled true smart contracts on top of Bitcoin. And I argue it was Counterparty's proof of burn event that really set off the following chain reaction, a chain reaction that would expose the clandestine rise of Blockstream to power, long before Blockstream was publicly announced.

Turns out, BC developers Greg Maxwell, Adam Back, Jorge Timon, Mark Friedenbach, Luke-jr, publicly *loathed* what Counterparty was doing.

I mean it! They really seemed to hate Counterparty. The charitable perspective there is they hated Counterparty because BTC itself couldn't support smart contracts. To this very day, no technical mechanism exists in BTC for funds to be escrowed by an autonomous agent and transmitted in an event-driven way. Counterparty, in order to provide those required features for smart contracts to Bitcoin, had to launch a new ledger within Bitcoin's ledger. And like all other newly created public ledgers, Counterparty needed its own native token in order to function. This token is called XCP. XCP and tokens built on top of XCP are autonomously-escrowable for trustless smart contract execution on top of Bitcoin.

But interestingly, and unbeknownst to the general public at the time, the BC developers who so publicly hated XCP had founded the Blockstream company, had taken *equity in Blockstream*, AND had made secretive plans to launch *sidechains* as the ultimate Bitcoin smart contract solution. Later on we would learn sidechains were to become Blockstream's #1 clame to fame, and that those plans had long since been put into action.

Importantly, Counterparty was NOT backed by $76 million in venture capital like Blockstream was. Counterparty never did an ICO, never raised funds from anyone beyond some piddling donations, and the developers of Counterparty didn't even pre-mine the token. Counterparty was utterly unfunded, IOW. It was deliberately launched by anonymous cofounders in exactly the same spirit as Satoshi Nakomoto launched Bitcoin itself.

Even more important, the Counterparty system requires **on-chain capacity** to function. Conversely, sidechains work **off-chain**. So not only do sidechains *not need* on-chain capacity to nearly the same degree as Counterparty, but sidechains actually *benefit* when Bitcoin's on-chain capacity is artificially restricted, like it is today.

In order to fulfill Blockstream's vision of Bitcoin going forward, Counterparty had to be detroyed. Blockstream couldn't afford the public latching on to XCP, because then they would raise hell if the blockchain's capacity wasn't raised to support the Counterparty system's success, and Bitcoin's success by extension.

I watched as the Blockstream cofounders worked their magic on public opinion by systematically denigrating Counterparty transactions as "blockchain bloat". Counterparty was worthless, they said, and worse still Counterparty was *parasitic* literally, they said this

Oddly enough, one day, Blockstream cofounder Mark Friedenbach stated outright that he believed Counterparty style transactions could eclipse all other types of Bitcoin transactions in popularity, and I quote:

> **We know that issued assets and smart property contracts could grow to eclipse bitcoin traffic entirely**. Some of us are even convinced this could happen quickly.

IOW, the Blockstream cofounders *knew* Counterparty had value, but they constantly labeled Counterparty transactions as worthless blockchain bloat, calling Counterparty a parasitic system with no redeeming qualities, and no right to exist.

At the same time, the very same Blockstream cofounders planned on capturing the entirety of Counterparty's market value through sidechains developed by none other than *Blockstream*. It's almost comical!

At one point, BC developer Luke-jr told Counterparty to "get a BIP", as if that would've solved *anything at all*.

Other developers told Counterparty to halt all operations and use a sidechain instead, which were supposedly "clearly better" even though sidechains were known way back then to have intractable problems with 51% attacks from PoW miners.

Tensions between Counterparty and the BC developers came to a boiling point during the BC 0.9 release. Prior to 0.9, and upon learning of BC's planned move to provide 80 bytes of OP_RETURN space, Counterparty pledged to move its protocol messages to OP_RETURN for efficiency's sake.

Yet, when the BC developers learned of Counterparty's intentions to actually /gasp *use* OP_RETURN, they freaked out and deliberately slashed OP_RETURN in half, from 80 bytes to 40 bytes, as a way of crippling the Counterparty system.

Luke-jr took this even further and outright [blacklisted Counterparty transactions](https://np.reddit.com/r/B...orcing_blacklists_on_all/) by default in his Gentoo Linux Bitcoin package without consulting the public.

**Things were heating up.**

It is no small coincidence that around this time, a relatively unknown developer, *Vitalik Buterin*, decided to launch a new altcoin called Ethereum as a separate blockchain instead of launching it on top of Bitcoin.

Vitalik, seeing how poorly the Bitcoin Core developers were treating Counterparty, basically said to hell with Bitcoin.

Vitalik's move to the Ethereum altchain turned out to be of drastic historical significance, given the unprecedented rise of ETH to 90% of Bitcoin's market cap. The resulting fall of Bitcoin to less than 50% of the total digital currency market cap remains with us to this very day, as a permanent black mark on Bitcoin.

In my view, we can also trace back the whole ICO craze to this strife between Counterparty and Blockstream. It all goes back to this core issue, an issue which few people know about or care to understand. I suspect the market remains nonchalant over this stuff because this type of history paints the BC developers in an extremely inconvenient light; it shows in dramatic fashion how Ethereum's rise was completely avoidable had the BC developers simply not acted like an authoritarian regime.

In short, the BC developers have acted in the interests of the Blockstream company to bamboozle the public into believing mainnet blockchains don't scale whatsoever, and that systems like sidechains are utterly necessary for enabling smart contracts on top of Bitcoin.

All of it is just a pretext to benefit major VCs, which have shat all over Bitcoin in the name of propping up their own investment in Blockstream and Ethereum. They never ONCE stop to consider what would happen if Bitcoin offered these features on its blockchain. Unsurprisingly so, because they're doing what it takes to make as much money as possible.

But now, it isn't just OP_RETURN they're crippling, it's the capacity limits of Bitcoin mainnet. People are upset and they're asking questions.

We finally arrive at the Great Block Size Debate, and the related censorship, hiding the story of Bitcoin that I just told you. I've since been banned from /r/Bitcoin on *numerous occasions* for attempting to awaken the public to these critically important yet widely neglected pieces of Bitcoin's history. See: /u/insttee

Bottom line, the Bitcoin status quo financially benefits the Blockstream company *and* the Ethereum investors, many of whom (along with many other types of altcoiners) are *thrilled* with the idea that Bitcoin "can't scale".

In short, this is the true history of Bitcoin, and it's also why Decred exists as a key alternative system to Bitcoin.

In my next post, I'll describe what Decred does to solve Bitcoin's problems and consequently why it is in my very biased opinion the world's most valuable internet money.

After you come to grips with the fact Ethereum need not exist as a separate blockchain, you may start to ask what *would've* happened if the BC developers had originally welcomed Ethereum with open arms, causing the system to be built on top of Bitcoin.

You might wonder:

- Couldn't all these ICOs raising millions of dollars actually be built on top of the Bitcoin ledger? Couldn't they raise funds in BTC?
- Wouldn't the Bitcoin ledger grow in popularity from all these new use cases built on top of Bitcoin?
- Wouldn't Bitcoin miners profit from the rise in aggregate transaction fees?
- Why is Bitcoin refusing to do anything about this?

In the past 30 days, Bitcoin saw its first major coinsplit. And unless the BC developers relent, it appears Bitcoin will see its second (and possibly third) major coinsplits this November.

In a nutshell, Decred's hybrid PoW/PoS consensus system was designed from the ground up to solve Bitcoin's biggest challenges, which I've outlined in painstaking detail in this post series.

Think about the rise of Blockstream, and the eventual impact this had on ETH hitting 90% of BTC's market cap. Blockstream exists largely because there is a horrible tragedy of the commons effect in the open source development world. Cryptocurrency is no exception. Even *widely* used open source software such as GnuPG goes largely unfunded, creating a situation where full-time project development quickly becomes unsustainable without involving outside entities.

The lesson of Bitcoin is that involving these outside entities is very dangerous, and risks corrupting the system at its core.

And take it from me as someone who invested in Counterparty since the early days, Counterparty has no full time developers at all due to a total lack of project funding, and in the digital currency world, not having full time developers is an absolute death knell. The project has zero traction because it has no credible way of gaining the momentum of an Ethereum type project with millions of funding. And we see ICO after ICO raising tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars for project development, leaving Counterparty further in the dust.

Importantly, Decred solves project funding by taking 10% of the block reward, and putting the usage of those funds up for vote by DCR holders. DCR holders vote via "stakemining", which is process by which DCR funds are locked in exchange for "tickets", which are non-transferrable blockchain assets that yield a passive income stream along with a vote.

Stakemining is how Decred can avoid companies like Blockstream raising $76M from traditional financial institutions and intertwining those institutions' interests with core development.

Basically, the USP behind Decred reduces down to stakemining. Stakemining solves all the things, and the way Decred implements stakemining doesn't stray all too far from what we know works technically well in Bitcoin. The Decred codebase is modeled after Bitcoin's, although it's important to note the Decred developers are competent enough to develop their own consensus system from scratch via their excellent work in btcsuite, which is the basis of Decred.

I intend to keep participating in Decred over many years, the incentives are strongly aligned for that, and my speculation is stakemining will optimize returns for investors much better than a system like Bitcoin where project development is controlled through soft power antics, such as that exhibited by Blockstream.

Investors should control the coin, not VC-backed companies with serious conflicts of interest.

Volgende: How do you get BCH on to SmartBCH? 08-'21 How do you get BCH on to SmartBCH?
Volgende: Het is weer vrijdag geweest dus nieuwe muziek! 06-'21 Het is weer vrijdag geweest dus nieuwe muziek!


There are no comments for this post

In order to comment on this post you need to be logged in. Use this link to log in when you are already a registered user. If you don't have an account you can create one here.