25 sats \ 0 replies \ @joda 22 Feb
Great job on the Livera podcast!
reply
5 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 22 Feb
absolute legend ! thanks
I rarely lost at that game 🤠
reply
128 sats \ 4 replies \ @supertestnet OP 22 Feb freebie
Yeah, tic tac toe is a solved game so there's very little chance of people playing this seriously on bitcoin
But it demonstrates that bitcoin can monetize any challenge/response protocol, and penalize "foul play"
Doing a simple, toy version is therefore very useful
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 22 Feb
simple is better.
I am very excited about bitvm, I am confident that it will solve the problem of scaling bitcoin once and for all. Do you believe that this is the ultimate solution to this problem? Congratulations and thank you for your work.
reply
1058 sats \ 2 replies \ @supertestnet OP 22 Feb freebie
You're welcome and thank you! I am excited too :D
No. I think bitvm can improve the world by improving sidechains, and I hope some people find use for them, but I doubt it will be a large number of people. IMO the sidechains we have today are pretty good and yet no one seems to use them. I suspect that is because most bitcoiners are indifferent about using bitcoin for day to day transactions, they see it mainly as a savings vehicle, which it works fine as, without needing any sidechains.
Saving money is, imo, bitcoin's most important use case, so that's understandable, but I don't personally see how these things will change: the number of people who want to spend their bitcoins on a day to day basis is tiny and shrinking, and no one else seems to care. I don't see how such low demand for scaling solutions can support the effort to create and maintain them. And even if a solution is found that makes bitcoin scalable, I don't think that tiny number of people will turn into a large group. I think their numbers are shrinking because they are satisfied by alternative payment methods, and almost no one will be upset if bitcoin ends up as "just" a savings tool.
(Obviously, those of us here on stacker news are among those who want to use bitcoin for more things. But we're not a very significant number of people, and I suspect we're in a shrinking crowd.)
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 22 Feb
I really appreciate your honesty
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @teatwo 23 Feb
I agree that analysis as the real phenomenon, but feel like not good. That's because that's the same path that gold ended up in...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0368d36190 23 Feb
fantastic demo!
I am curious about meaning of numbers of 45 and 36 for Alice and Bob and how they have to prepare and compute possible combinations of state upfront. If it's a function f(size_of_the_board x duration_of_game) ?
For some real world smart contract would that relate to business_task_complexity x duration_of_engagement?
Is it going to be straightforward for developers to understand and put into code..
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @DiedOnTitan 23 Feb
I commend the work you are doing with BitVM. You are no doubt learning a tremendous amount, so no matter the outcome of BitVM - whether it gains traction and succeeds or not, the knowledge you have gained will enrich you. That being said, BitVM fills the gap that certain OP codes, for lack of integration, leave open. Does it concern you that if e.g. OP_CAT eventually gets integrated into Bitcoin core, or other contenders like OP_SPLIT, OP_CSV, or OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK get baked in that BitVM will become moot?
reply
137 sats \ 5 replies \ @supertestnet OP 23 Feb
On the contrary, that excites me. BitVM enables similar constructs to what those soft forks enable, only it's less efficient in terms of transaction size, and requires a 2 party Prover/Verifier setup, which sometimes creates additional trust assumptions. Fixing those inefficiencies sounds like a good thing so give me the soft forks please
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @DiedOnTitan 23 Feb
Nice. Some devs get attached to their work in a more clingy way.
How would you classify or name BitVM? Drivechain, sidechain? Something else?
reply
132 sats \ 3 replies \ @supertestnet OP 23 Feb
Perhaps it helps that I am not paid to work on bitvm. If my income depended on bitvm's success I might be more irrationally attrached to it.
Bitvm is a suite of techniques which, together, allow one or more people to execute arbitrary computations on bitcoin, and one or more other people to penalize them for incorrect execution
So I suppose I would classify bitvm as a multiparty computation protocol
One plausible application of this protocol is to create a bridge to a sidechain. There are several ways to do it, and imo each bitvm-based bridge idea ought to have its own name, different from bitvm's name, on the principle that different things should have different names. One of my own ideas for a bitvm-based bridge is something I call unisob.
Besides sidechains, I also think bitvm is useful for some types of competitive peer to peer gaming (e.g. chess, lotteries, probably not Doom unfortunately) and for a type of covenant-substitute that I call bonded covenants.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DiedOnTitan 23 Feb
Well..Bitvm makes Bitcoin Turing complete, so Doom is technically possible? Just slow and likely very expensive.
reply
116 sats \ 1 reply \ @supertestnet OP 23 Feb freebie
It's not so bad if one person is playing by themselves, e.g. in order to prove they didn't modify the software. And you could expand that to people competing for a high score on an unmodified copy of Doom. But a big problem arises when you give two people the controls and have them do a death match. Presumably, both will commit to reaching a state where the controls they input result in their character killing their opponent some number of times. Whoever does it first wins.
So then, what happens if a player, beginning to lose and not wanting to, abandons the game and challenges the remaining player to show what inputs they provided to reach the end state? The remaining player cannot prove that any inputs he provides "make it" to his committed end state, because as soon as either player quits, the next frame of the game cannot load. The game's state, in each frame, depends on both players revealing hashes for whatever buttons they are pressing or not pressing, and it cannot compute how the frame should look without that data -- from both players. Since the victim of this attack cannot prove he reached the end state, which he committed to reach, he cannot respond to the challenge created by the "sore loser," and will therefore lose his money when a timelock expires. So it basically turns into "whoever challenges first wins." Which is no fun at all.
This doesn't apply to a game like chess or tic tac toe, where there are a relatively small number of turns, and you can construct a set of bitcoin transactions that "passes the turn" back and forth. In Doom, both players provide inputs simultaneously, so you cannot pass it back and forth without modifying the game engine. You could probably modify it so that player 1 provides inputs on "even" frames and player 2 provides inputs on "odd" frames, and that would probably mostly work out decently if neither player abandons the game. But if either player does abandon the game, you have to take every remaining frame of the game to the blockchain, giving each player multiple blocks worth of time to figure out what buttons they should press given what they see on the screen. That makes the game effectively impossible to win. So I just don't think Doom deathmatches work.
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiedOnTitan 23 Feb
Thanks for the detailed reply. We will be sure to program only turn based RPGs on chain. :)
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheWildHustle 22 Feb
These rabbit holes.....
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @supertestnet OP 22 Feb
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 24 Feb outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.