but the AMM on Ethereum will work completely differently than a CAT based on Bitcoin, Ethereum has been designed for these applications. So even if technically CAT allows you to build an AMM, it doesn't mean it will ever be used.
you realize you are asking smth impossible right?There is no other network with Bitcoin market cap + slow block time + inexpressive scripting language. MEV on Ethereum is real because of Solidity + fast block time that enable usages that will never be possible on Bitcoin. How can I prove to you that even if with CAT I can build an AMM, no one will actually use it like Uniswap and therefore not generate MEV?
nostr:nprofile1qynhwumn8ghj7cfjxy6xwv35xyenyumpxfnxzuenx56rgvf3vcerxdp3xg6ju7re0gqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsq3samnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwpshqctwdajx2tnrdaksz9thwden5te0dehhxarj9eux6u3wwfhkx6mnqyf8wumn8ghj7ur4wfcxcetsv9njuetnqyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuamfdd5kvun9v4jxjcfw0puh5qpqs7qluhwu0gj8kxs7jxkrlvlt5aa725cjphtq2plhrc93wjgql75qm7gd6u : Firefish is fully decentralized and transparent, here is a more detailed technical description: https://docs.firefish.io/firefish-protocol
nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn5v9m827pww3jkx6qprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyd8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndamx2un9d9nkutnpwpcz7qpq3wnx7nyf0q6e2ltgae80d2l9nttk0dmvdrapjg7my8jl6kghtdss4ygkj3 : Yes, companies are welcome. Get in touch for instructions, thanks!
Coinbase
1. Your BTC is converted into Coinbase Wrapped BTC (cbBTC).
2. cbBTC is transferred to Morpho, an Ethereum-based lending protocol.
3. You receive USDC stablecoins in your Coinbase wallet.
4. You likely need to convert USDC to fiat currency.
5. Finally, you withdraw fiat from Coinbase to your bank account.
Firefish.io:
1. Your BTC is locked as collateral in an on-chain escrow.
2. Fiat currency is directly transferred to your bank account.
agreed but Coinbase is good at abstracting complexity to their users :)
LTV plus intéressante chez Coinbase mais une alternative européenne c'est sympa aussi
right, very good point, in the BitVM context it would then mean that it should be made simple to let a challenger program running on a server at home I imagine?
I think the figures are approximately that the state budget of ES for a year is close to the profit that Tether makes in a year, both close to USD10B
je mise sur le Mali ;)
This is an interesting article: https://dba.xyz/a-bitcoin-l2-thesis/
But I have two objections.
#1: the author accuses bitcoin of having a "lack of programmability." It doesn't. Bitcoin Script is computationally universal because it has all the logic gates, and the bitvm whitepaper proved that you can get around the script size constraints by transporting state from one transaction to the next. So bitcoin script is fully programmable: anything a real computer can do, bitcoin script can do. It just requires lots of transactions (i.e. it's expensive).
#2: the author ignores the lightning network on the grounds that he wants to "mostly focus on fully programmable L2s."
But the lightning network is just as programmable as bitcoin is. A lightning transaction is just a bitcoin transaction that you haven't broadcasted yet. So you can do just as much programming therein as you can do in a "regular" bitcoin transaction, and even create a bitvm-like chain of transactions executing a complex program, all built on a lightning transaction and therefore on a layer 2.
I want to see work done in that direction.
but BitVM design is optimistic, do you really see this as good as the real thing? e.g. verifying a SNARK proof onchain vs never actually verifying it but instead rellying on someone challenging in case someone tries to fraud ...
Gotta love Bitcoin, one client has a bug, the bug is now part of consensus :)
afaik it doesn't enable covenants so depends on what you want to activate :)
if you have miners to mine both chains then yes but usually the market will decide which one is Bitcoin. Some hard forks are hard forks from the start, like bigger blocks.
I'll try :) because it is a soft fork, a tx with OP_CAT will be valid even from nodes that have not the soft fork. However, because they don't have the soft fork, they can't interpret any script containing OP_CAT and therefore, the inner workings of Bitcoin makes it so that these nodes will see this tx as an anyone can spend. This means that these nodes without the soft fork will interpret as valid any tx spending the utxos locked by the original tx , whereas nodes with the soft fork, will only let a valid tx with the interpretation of the CAT script, spend the utxo. So now let's say the majority of the nodes haven't upgraded, if a CAT tx gets mined somehow, the network would fork as soon as a "stealing" tx would appear because the nodes with the upgrade would reject it. I hope it helps.
CAT with proper introspection op codes and ideally some nice algebra as well
that's not how it works, if I use (soft) forked version of Core with CAT, the nodes that haven't upgraded will interpret the Script with CAT as an anyone can spend, therefore creating a bounty. So even a soft fork needs the majority of nodes to upgrade to survive. Hope it helps.
that's because the demand is through MSTR and ETFs, which is not self custodial. If this is your vision for Bitcoin, yes you are fine. For those who think Bitcoin is better when self custodied and usually want the world to benefit from it, we need to scale.
beautiful