Yes, Bitcoin Can Do Smart Contracts and Particl Demonstrates How (

The Bitcoin blockchain is not
known for its ability to enable smart contracts. In fact, most developers
creating smart contracts use a different blockchain, like Ethereum.


But the truth is that the
Bitcoin protocol can be used to create smart contracts., the blockchain eCommerce platform, is doing just
that by using Bitcoin-based smart contracts to manage funds in their trustless
escrow: Mutually…


B2X reverts replay protection due to security issue for lightning and other smart contracts

Yesterday Jeff Garzik merged a commit to the BTC1 repo (aka bitcoin2x) which reverts the opt in replay protection they were planning to use.

The stated reason for this revert was that Peter Todd and David Harding had found that the replay protection could be used to break lightning and other similar smart contracts by using the blacklist address employed in the replay protection to make an un-spendable payment in the smart contract.

This leaves bitcoin2x with no replay protection as of now, and only 1 month until the planned fork date. Although it is not guaranteed, I would think this would cause exchanges to reconsider their support since they no longer have a surefire method of splitting coins, and therefore could be open to replay attacks costing them millions.

submitted by /u/andrewbuck40
[link] [comments]

The smart money is on BTC

Today, the large majority of the bitcoin user base supports the core roadmap. The negligible transaction volume on the chain of the BC.a.s.h, which is less than 2% of the volume on bitcoin's chain, shows this quite explicitly. (Of course, so does the number of nodes running bitcoin core and so does the value of BTC).

Miners don't follow agreements they signed, and especially, they don't follow the NYA Segwit2X agreement. Despite signing that agreement to Hard Fork bitcoin only after the activation of SegWit and to support the chain that agreement creates, the same miners who signed it then hard forked separately and have dedicated their hashing power to that fork when it was more profitable to do so. Miners follow profit. Period. And frankly, there's nothing at all wrong with that. That means they follow they mine where block reward / PetaHash is highest.

When (or rather if) there is a fork, the difficulty on both chains will be the same. Miners will follow the one with the highest value or risk losing money.

Which do you think will have the higher value? The one with all the core developers and all the principled users, which is most of them; or the one with one developer, a bunch of companies and mostly trolls who have already divested their BTC for an alternative?

Within a short time post-split MINERS WILL MINE GOOD OLD FASHIONED, BTC. Any amount of money spent on artificially keeping the price of the forked coin high will get spent quickly and the bubble on it will burst. And then it will be clear to 100% of people that BTC is bitcoin and that corporations and miners and backroom deals have no power here. And then the value of bitcoin will actually skyrocket as it demonstrates that it fended off the most powerful attack yet against it simply by staying itself.

submitted by /u/logical
[link] [comments]