Have you fallen into the rabbit hole of covenants?

Interviewer: Hua, freelance writer, independent researcher. X: @AmelieHua

Interviewee: Poly, a Controls Specialist, maintains multiple Distributed Control Systems (DCS's) and has worked with other five nine systems (99.999% uptime availability). X: @Polyd_

Covenants are an old yet fresh topic. As early as 2013, developers began discussing this topic, and in recent years, multiple BIPs aimed at implementing covenants have been proposed, sparking intense debates and making it one of the hottest topics.

Covenants warrant serious discussion due to their powerful capabilities. They are considered to bring new possibilities to the programmability of Bitcoin and are believed to enable smart contracts. For Bitcoin, this is undoubtedly a double-edged sword. In this article, we will explore what covenants are, how they work, their robust functionality, and their significance for Bitcoin. While discussing details, this article often uses CTV as an example, but CTV is not the only method of implementing covenants.

This article delves into the exploration of covenants but also magnifies a slice of Bitcoin under a microscope for observation. Through this observation, we can understand how Bitcoin operates at a granular level, comprehending both its capabilities and limitations. Understanding what it cannot do is as crucial as understanding what it can do because only then can we choose the right path for building on Bitcoin.

Hua:

Before discussing covenants, clarifying two issues related to Bitcoin may be necessary, which can help us better understand covenants.

We know that Bitcoin uses a scripting language, and it is known that scripting languages support the implementation of smart contracts. However, in reality, smart contracts have not been implemented on the Bitcoin main chain. This inevitably creates a sense that implementing smart contracts on Bitcoin faces some insurmountable obstacles, and it seems impossible on the Bitcoin network.

However, many people may not be aware that although Bitcoin can be programmed using a scripting language, the set of opcodes is extremely limited. This limited set of opcodes restricts the programmability scope of Bitcoin, meaning that, although the scripting language can implement smart contracts, programmers do not have sufficient "tools" to implement smart contracts.

Poly:

Definitely, Bitcoin Script can be considered limiting as it can only perform the basic operations such as making simple payments. Some of the reasons that people may find it limiting is that it doesnt have a global state, its not considered turing complete, it uses a UTXO-based system (which has value blindness) instead of an account-based system. The last big reason is that very little data from the blockchain itself can be integrated into contracts causing blockchain-blindness.

This has created a lot of challenges over the years as people have worked around these limitations. Weve also had a semantic shift with the term smart contract to mean one specific thing when you should consider the lightning network a production of many smart contracts formed by many individuals. Those multi-sigs with hashlocks and timelocks are not only smart contracts, but also have time-based covenants.

The problem is, just as you mentioned before, because Bitcoin only has simple opcodes to perform just the basics, if you attempt to scale beyond two people in a smart contract, you can get either a lot of bloat for an on-chain footprint or the things you want to do just might not be possible. This strict limitation comes from a few places, I think the biggest being that when the inflation bug occurred back in 2010, Satoshi had disabled a whole list of higher order opcodes including OP_CAT which wouldve allowed us to create more dynamic smart contracts via transaction introspection.

BCH has since overcome this limitation within their own script, showing that Script isnt as weak as everyone assumes, just that Bitcoin has always been slower due to its decentralization and coordination is near impossible except over long periods of time. Weve also barely touched on Taproot and Tapscript which will alleviate a lot of the footprint concerns and allows for new behaviors such as BitVM by rolling up the contract into the signature and you only reveal as necessary.

Hua:

Why are there strict limitations on opcodes? Can you use OP_CAT as an example to help us understand this point?

Poly:

So OP_CAT is deceptively simple, it will take two strings and add them together. It was originally disabled because it had resource issues and could be used to cause nodes to crash, but Im not sure if thats the full story as Satoshi set the 520 byte stack limit and disabled OP_CAT in the same commit so there could be more to it than just simple resource exhaustion.

But just to give a short list of what OP_CAT can perform: CTV/TXHASH covenants, verify SPV proofs, double-spend protection for 0-conf TXs, 64-bit arithmetic, vaults, quantum-resistant signatures. The list goes on, with OP_CAT alone, it can emulate both CTV[CheckTemplateVerify] and TXHASH style transactions. The only issue is its highly inefficient in the manner that it performs these actions that might be possible, but that could just preclude these transactions from being desirable except by users of scale such as custodians.

Hua:

Let's talk about another "limitation" of Bitcoin. Bitcoin only supports "verification" as a form of computation and can't do general-purpose computation.

We also know that, for example, smart contracts on Ethereum contain rules for state transitions. It completes the state transition through computation, enabling the functionality of smart contracts. In comparison, Bitcoin can't do general-purpose computation, meaning it cannot achieve state transitions through computation on its own.

Is my understanding correct?

Poly:

Yeah, Id agree thats a simple summary of the current state of things. Bitcoin could be made to support computational transactions and the line can become quite thin when covenants and state transitions are involved, but those proposals arent as well researched and might not be something thats considered desirable.

Im actually not that much of a fan of the way Ethereum does things. Due to it being computational in nature with the verification built on-top, if I attempt to perform a trade, my window could shift and I could fail to trade but the transaction for the attempt to trade was still valid so i still paid for fees which wasted my money on what id want to consider a failed transaction and wasted blockspace for someone else. Another weird aspect are the Oracles in Ethereum. Oracles must pay gas to update their oracle prices whereas in Bitcoin DLCs, the Oracle are blinded and are just providing a signature and cant be pinned due to a change in fees nor can Oracles target specific contracts.

Earlier I discussed all the downsides to the UTXO model compared to the account model and global state model, but what allows the UTXO model to shine is parallelism. The only concern you have is the child transactions to the same UTXO, nothing else matters, this allows the system to scale much better.

Hua:

Let's start discussing covenants now. What are covenants?

Poly:

Covenants usually refer to restrictions on how coins can be transferred. The word covenant seems to carry some sort of connotation with it so it helps to demystify it and explain it as simple locking mechanisms you can place only on your *own* coin.

We have two covenants already inside Bitcoin and they power the Lightning Network, CSV [CheckSequenceVerify] and CLTV [CheckLockTemplateVerify]. Some just call these opcodes smart contract primitives as theyre simple time locks, but they can also be classified as time covenants.

CTV [CheckTemplateVerify] is a proposed Bitcoin upgrade and is included in BIP 119. It is different from CSV and CLTV, you can think of CTV as a TXID [Transaction ID] lock or UTXO lock, only these TXIDs can be made from this lock. For CTV, we refer to this TXID lock as Equality Covenants as the resulting transactions must equal to the original transactions that were committed. Its also called a deferred commitment covenant, as you can see that your UTXO has been committed to, but it isnt yet placed on-chain.

The most known alternative is SH_APO [Any Previous Out or AnyPrevOut] which focuses on the payout commitment being ensured while allowing the pay-in method to be flexible. A few others discussed are OP_CCV [also known as MATT], OP_EXPIRE, TXHASH and TEMPLATE KEY.

Hua:

When you mention "covenants usually refer to restrictions on how coins can be transferred," can I understand it like this: Covenants are a method of specifying how funds can be used, or in other words, it's a way of restricting where funds can be spent.

Poly:

Yep, it effectively earmarks the UTXO to be distributed in a specific manner, once you commit to it, you can't take it back, it's now consensus bound, and only its new owner can decide how to spend their funds.

When a UTXO is created on-chain, our instinct is to assume that a single private key is holding that UTXO in place. But if it was a CTV bound UTXO, when the UTXO is spent, you'll see an extra 32 byte hash paired with the new transaction that represents the hidden state that was inside the original UTXO.

Hua:

You've mentioned "TXID lock/UTXO lock" multiple times. Can I understand it like this: To understand how CTV achieves their functionality, we need to understand what TXID lock is and how it works. TXID lock is a key mechanism.

Poly:

Yes, It creates a strong foundation to build further schemes. The TXID is determined by the contents of a tx. And if you can add inputs to a tx, you can manipulate the TXID. CTV makes you lock the number of inputs and outputs. This is how we ensure that CTV commitments are trustless, if the TXID could be malleable, you could potentially be able to steal someones funds. Once you have a TXID locking mechanism, you combine it with other locking mechanisms such as the time locks to build even greater smart contracts.

Hua:

Why do you think covenants are a rabbit hole?

Poly:

I call covenants a rabbit hole because theres so much you can do with simple restrictions on transactions such as a time lock or a TXID lock. Weve managed to build the entire Lightning network with simple time locks and while it isnt perfect, it is the only truly decentralized L2 in existence. I dont like how its slowly shifting towards being custodial focused, but thats exactly why Ive started down this rabbit hole to begin with: To make our smart contracts more powerful. We refer to the TXID lock as a Template. With Taproot, we gained the ability to have signature aggregation. With Templates and CTV, we gain the ability to have transaction aggregation.

CTV serves as a replacement for a pre-signed transaction oracle, which eliminates the trust and interactivity requirements needed to create more sophisticated smart contracts that are needed for things like vaults and payment pools. The vaults and payment pools that you can make with CTV are technically possible today, but currently theyre precluded by the trust or interactivity needed to make it work. Moreover, with CTV, we can build channel factories, additional layer 2 solutions such as Ark, Timeout-Trees, Stakechains or Surfchains, and JIT fidelity bond solutions such as PathCoin.

Probably my favorite feature is Non-Interactive Channels [NICs] that weve also been referring to as Cold Channels. The basic idea is to take a normal lightning channel and simply place it in a CTV template. What makes this different from a normal lightning channel is that neither party actually needed to be online to create this channel. So if I need a channel with another person, I dont need them to be online to create it, I dont even need to tell them I made it until Im ready to spend from it! This allows for cold storage capability on lightning because I dont need a watchtower nor a node to safeguard my funds in any channels that arent yet active. Third-party coordinators can also establish NICs for two individuals so theres a lot of flexibility in whats possible.

As it stands, CTV wont allow you to build a DEX on-chain, but Im not sure if that is such a bad thing as people are currently trying to build DEXs off-chain using the Lightning Network as it is today. I think this ties back into the Verification vs Computation discussion, how much do you really want on-chain versus how much do you need to verify on-chain. One concern I have about on-chain DEXs, besides the excessive on-chain updates driving higher fees, is MEV. Weve already spotted some MEV from BCHs DEXs transactions and as the market matures, this is bound to get worse.

Hua:

Can you give an example to help us understand how CTV works?

Poly:

Lets say I am expecting to receive 5 BTC, as of right now, the only thing I can do is receive the payment and verify it on-chain. With CTV, I can commit to future addresses or to people and reduce it down to a simple pubkey that I give to my payer to pay me. They dont know the details of it so it remains private to everyone but me. Once I can confirm that theyve paid me, all of the actions I took using the CTV template have now also taken effect.

So if I had elected to create a channel with Bob, once Alice pays me, the channel with Bob is now committed, even though the channel with Bob is nowhere to be seen on-chain, it is only accessible by my template and the transaction that Alice had created. Its only known to me until I share the channel details with Bob. Once I do share the details with Bob, we can use the channel as normal. When we cooperatively close the channel, instead of needing to place an open channel details on-chain, we just place the closing channel on-chain. This allows us to perform transaction cut-through, reducing the total number of transactions that need to be on-chain by at least half for layer 2 solutions.

The opening portion only needs a commitment, what we really care about are the closing details. If this was a shared UTXO with multiple people, we could collaborate to close our transactions together as well, reducing the number of on-chain transactions even further.

Hua:

As you mentioned before, we can introduce different opcodes to implement covenants.

Poly:

So if we re-introduced OP_CAT, I think it would allow for nearly every type of covenant possible as you can emulate any form of introspection for TXHASH. The more limited method would be to introduce opcodes representing the explicit behavior desired like with CTV, CSFS or CheckSeperateSignature. CTV is the ability to do deferred outputs. CSFS is the ability to do deferred signatures so you can defer the payment itself. They sound similar and in fact they work well together as building blocks to enable LN-Symmetry, but the commitments are happening at different levels.

TXHASH and TEMPLATE KEY both enable introspection and serve the same purpose, but TEMPLATE KEY uses a single-byte mode while TXHASH uses multi-byte flags. This allows for much more powerful capabilities inside script and smart contracts, but many are concerned about the side effects it could have. TXHASH and TEMPLATE KEY are more of a CTVv2, something that would make CTV more powerful and expressive.

Hua:

I've noticed that there doesn't seem to be a significant disagreement about whether to support the implementation of covenants. However, in comparison, there seems to be more significant divergence among people regarding which method or set of opcodes to add to implement covenants.

Poly:

I think a large part is theres different camps of thought. Theres a lot of the lack of understanding the intent behind each proposal as they have different goals in mind and are designed in completely different ways.

A lot of developers have only had their eye on Lightning and how its to evolve, they tend to favor opcodes like SH_APO since it enables LN-Symmetry. For a lot of developers that dont particularly like Lightning due to its limitations such as Inbound Liquidity constraints or the requirement to be online, they tend to favor opcodes like OP_CAT, TXHASH as more expressive scaling solutions. The developers that prefer CTV are more neutral and are looking at it from a systems point of view, it doesnt necessarily do any one thing perfectly but it greatly enhances everyones ability to do their preferred thing, whatever it may be without introducing risks that cant be measured since it doesnt introduce introspection.

Hua:

Before discussing covenants, we talked about issues related to opcodes in scripting language and the problem of limited computation leading to state transition. We already know the relationship between covenants and opcodes. Now, let's delve into the issue of state transition. I'm not sure if looking at covenants from the perspective of "state transition" is correct, but this perspective truly fascinates me.

Without covenants, the scripting language's main function is to retrieve transactions' signatures and verify them. The transaction can only be completed when the private key is correct, and there is no intermediate state. With covenants, a transaction can be completed when certain conditions are met. Moreover, a transaction can only be completed when specific conditions are satisfied (not just the correctness of the private key). Can we understand it this way: Covenants indirectly provide conditions for state transition.

Poly:

The covenant is the template shell or the "state". Inside of it, you're going to need to make time locks and other functions to enable the desired functionality that youre wanting, be that a vault, lightning channel or some other layer 2 solution.

So CTV allows for the state creation to occur, but you have to dynamically rebuild the state at each transition to keep it in homeostasis, we call this meta-recursive. Whereas something like SH_APO allows you to create a state and then periodically update that state, making it recursive. CTV can also create a chain of transactions that would allow you to step-through that state.

A good example to think about is Ark, its a giant smart contract, almost like a giant coinjoin and the one running the protocol creates a new state [or rounds as its called] every few seconds to facilitate participants to pay others as needed. Once the Ark operator is ready, they will send a transaction to the mempool to commit the current state to on-chain. These on-chain placeholders can be thought of as the transition states. The operator has to constantly recompute new states to present to the Ark participants and whats sent to on-chain is the verification of that state.

Hua:

Can we understand it this way: Covenants implement a form of smart contract based on verification rather than computation?

Poly:

Yes. Definitely. This smart contract is just comparing a transaction to an associated sha256 hash. Block speed verification would actually increase since theres no signature operations.

Hua:

One direction of development for blockchains is modularity, including off-chain computation. However, Bitcoin seems naturally designed for off-chain computation, appearing behind but actually leading the way. What do you think?

Poly:

Time is a flat circle. Its crazy how it seems like weve come full circle to whats wanted in a blockchain. Bitcoin still seems to have some modularity issues and footprint issues. I wish we had better side-chains that werent simply multi-sig solutions and used actual cryptographic means to secure ones funds and allowed for Unilateral Exits. I think that would help push the boundaries on Bitcoins modularity. Taproot has allowed for even more off-chain computation with things such as BitVM, which would allow us to compute almost anything off-chain. But unfortunately, it cant emulate things inside Bitcoin such as CTV so it seems we still have progress to make.

Hua:

What possibilities can be achieved by combining covenants with other opcodes like DLC?

Poly:

So DLCs have a few problems that would be fixed with covenants such as increasing the flexibility of the parameters of the DLC by making many price points [if were wagering on the price of something such as Bitcoin]. Another one is that hardware wallets [HWW] cant interact with a lot of DLCs, the signing rounds for DLCs and attempting to do it with HWWs causes DLCs to take several minutes to open. With CTV, this delay to enter a DLC can be reduced down to seconds.

Hua:

Are there any other points you'd like to introduce to the readers?

Poly:

We went over a lot of concepts. We touched on how it can be used to mitigate excessive blockspace demand and potential ddos attacks. We discussed how people could save space by making Non-Interactive Channels. I think another good one to discuss is the "L2 exit problem". If we managed to get everyone off of the L1 layer and get them onto a large L2, there's currently no good way to get people off that L2 in an expedited manner. We could think of that L2 as Lightning [we call the potential mass exodus on Lightning, the "Thundering Herd problem], or we could think of Coinbase, Binance or Liquid as the L2. There are people who hold claims to Bitcoin, but their only way to actually acquire that claim is by submitting a transaction to get it placed on-chain. There's millions of people on Coinbase, I have no idea how to get them off of there and onto Bitcoin in any orderly fashion in today's environment. There would be a mempool backlog of 6 months attempting to get people off the exchange. CTV can fix this.

Make an Ark or a Timeout-Tree with CTV. The exchange could even offer the service directly. Everyone could be offloaded from the original "shared UTXO" that was under Coinbase's consensus and pushed into a "shared UTXO" with a consensus of their choice, be it a simple pool or a large Timeout-Tree. This is where it really wrinkles the brain, this was a pure L2 <> L2 conversion. There was no intermediary step requiring me to go down to L1 first. And I can continue repeating this process indefinitely, using any layer of my choice. There isnt a need to return to the base layer unless I was forced there such as from an uncooperative closeout from my channel or perhaps an unvaulting from my vault. The Ark and Timeout-Tree pitfall is that they have rollover requirements, you have to move your funds every few weeks or months or you forfeit your funds. This isnt an ideal solution for long-term funds but works great for any short term holdings and larger markets.

I'd like to provide a full list of every concept thats been developed using CTV and its ability to simply aggregate pre-signed transactions: Non-Interactive Channels, Timeout-Trees, Ark, Darkpools, Payment Pools, Payment Channels, Ball Lightning, Congestion Control, Dpool's, Compaction, Tree Swaps, PathCoin, Stakechains, Surfchains. But dont think of these as all independent Templates, if theres a feature of one that you wish to include in another, you can create your own custom Template to try and find your desired behavior.

References:

Owen's Covenants 101 https://x.com/OwenKemeys/status/1741575353716326835

Owen's Covenants 102 https://x.com/OwenKemeys/status/1744181234417140076

Owens CTV Demo https://x.com/OwenKemeys/status/1752138051105493274

Dallas's Primer https://x.com/dallasirushing/status/1740443095689318566

Batching Lightning Channels Required Covenants https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-October/022006.html

Timeout-Trees https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-September/021941.html

Continued here:

An Interview With Polyd: The Rabbit hole of Covenants - CryptoDaily

BounceBit introduced early access with The Water Margin Event on January 30, 2024, inviting early contributors to boost Total Value Locked (TVL) and earn BounceBit points in return. Achieving remarkable milestones, BounceBits TVL soared to over $600 million within a month, complemented by securing $6 million in seed funding from leading investors Blockchain Capital and Breyer Capital. Today, we are thrilled to unveil our latest achievement: the BounceBit Testnet is officially live! Users are invited to enjoy an early experience of BounceClub and engage in staking on the BounceBit Testnet. Lets dive into the features and opportunities BounceBit Testnet brings.

The guiding philosophy of BounceBit is deeply motivated by Apple Inc.s spirit of innovation and commitment to user-centric design. Apples success is attributed not only to the functionality of their products but also to their elegant design and user-friendly interface.

Inspired by Apples business model, BounceBit aims to revolutionize traditional onchain development methods by introducing the concept of BounceClub and BounceBit App Store. As an integral part of the BounceBit ecosystem, BounceClub is designed to simplify smart contract deployment for everyone and minimize dApp redundancy.

BounceClub serves as a Web3 hub enabling everyone to craft their own onchain space without any coding requirements. A BounceClub owner can customize their BounceClub by simply selecting protocols that are listed on the BounceBit App Store, just like downloading apps from the App Store on your iPhone. The BounceBit App Store functions as a library of Web3 plugins where developers are welcome to apply for listing their smart contracts, just like publishing apps on iOSs App Store. Users who do not own a BounceClub can browse existing BounceClubs and engage in various Web3 activities to earn yield.

The BounceBit Testnet launch introduces multiple features: The BounceClub event, offering early access to BounceClub; BBScan, the explorer that tracks all activities on the BounceBit network; Dual-token staking, allowing users to stake BounceBits native token $BB and BounceBits uniformly mapped BTC $BBTC.

The BounceClub Event is centered around the theme Building on Bitcoin: From East to West, emphasizing a global effort to expand and innovate within the Bitcoin ecosystem. This theme underlines the initiative to unite developers, enthusiasts, and contributors from diverse regions in shaping the future of Bitcoin-centric development and applications.

To explore any of the Testnet features, youll need to get $BB tokens first from BounceBitsdiscord channel. Everyone is welcome to participate in the BounceClub event as either a BounceClub owner or a BounceClub user. Heres how it works:

There will be two sets of Testnet leaderboard tracking the level of engagement. One leaderboard ranks BounceClub Owners based on the total amount of transactions made in their Clubs, while the other one ranks BounceClub Users based on the amount of transactions made by each user.

Advancing on the Testnet leaderboards brings numerous rewards upon the BounceBit Mainnet Launch in April. Notably, the top 6000 BounceClub Owners on the Testnet leaderboard will be eligible to claim the exclusive 6000 Mainnet BounceClubs when BounceBit Mainnet launches.

The Testnet BounceClub Event supports a variety of tokens that are mirrored from multiple platforms for users to engage in the DeFi activities within BounceClubs. The list of mirrored tokens includes:

More smart contracts and assets will be added to this list soon!

BounceBit is building a BTC restaking infrastructure that provides a foundational layer for different restaking products, secured by the regulated custody of Mainnet Digital and Ceffu. The BounceBit chain, designed as a showcase of a restaking product within the BounceBit ecosystem, is a PoS Layer 1 secured by validators staking both BTC and BounceBits native tokenA dual-token system leveraging native Bitcoins security with full EVM compatibility. Critical ecosystem infrastructure like bridges and oracles are secured by restaked BTC. Through an innovative CeFi + DeFi framework, BounceBit empowers BTC holders to earn yield across multiple networks.

Website |X (Former Twitter) |Discord

This publication is provided by the client. Cointelegraph does not endorse and is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy, quality, advertising, products, or other materials on this page. Readers should do their own research before taking any actions related to the company. Cointelegraph is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods, or services mentioned in the press release.

Originally posted here:

Introducing BounceBit testnet: BounceClub East-to-West Event - Cointelegraph

Almost one year after the introduction of Ethereum-style smart contracts, so-called liquid staking protocols are booming on Filecoin, a blockchain built to store data.

Since January 1, the value of crypto locked in Filecoins dozen liquid staking protocols has grown to more than $450 million from $272 million.

Its a sign users are becoming more familiar with Filecoin and its nascent DeFi ecosystem.

Its also another sign that users love the points systems that have taken over Ethereum and Solana, too.

Stay ahead of the game with our weekly newsletters

A likely catalyst for Filecoins recent growth is the anticipation of rewards programs that incentivise user activity, Messari analyst Mihai Grigore told DL News.

Like airdrops projects distributions of free tokens to reward early or loyal users points programs, which function much like traditional businesses rewards programs, can juice user activity.

Unlike airdrops, however, they allow US-based projects to avoid the regulatory headache that can come with promising or issuing tokens.

As such, they have spread like wildfire among decentralised finance applications on Ethereum and Solana. They appear to be a powerful incentive on Filecoin, too.

Join the community to get our latest stories and updates

Of the dozen liquid staking protocols tracked by DefiLlama, all have grown at least 48% in the past month. But GLIF, the largest, has separated itself from the pack.

GLIF is a long-running project on Filecoin. It built one of the blockchains first wallets, according to founder Jon Schwartz. When Filecoin developers added smart contract functionality in March 2023, GLIF built a liquid staking service.

Deposits to GLIF have skyrocketed since early February, when it announced a $4.5 million raise and the launch of a points system sometime in the first quarter of the year.

Since then, the total value of crypto locked in GLIF has more than doubled. On February 22, user activity briefly overloaded GLIFs website.

Year-to-date, GLIFs increase in net deposits of [about] 6.9 million FIL accounted for nearly 76% of the total DeFi net deposits on Filecoin, Grigore said. That figure doesnt account for collateral posted by borrowers on GLIF.

Schwartz attributes the jump to points and to growing comfort with Filecoin.

When Filecoin developers launched the blockchain in October 2020, there were only 11 built-in smart contracts.

That would be analogous to Ethereum having, say, 11 smart contracts, and those were the only ones you could really use on the network, Schwartz told DL News. No developers like myself could deploy custom smart contract logic to the chain.

That changed last March, when developers introduced smart contract functionality.

That change brought Ethereum-style smart contracts on Filecoin, enabling DeFi use cases, notably liquid staking, Grigore said.

Schwartz believes the blockchain is now reaping the benefits of that paradigm change.

You know how these things go, especially with new and immature networks, he said. It takes time for DeFi to develop and for people to get comfortable.

Liquid staking is the biggest business on Ethereum. As of Wednesday, users had deposited more than $46 billion in cryptocurrencies in Ethereums three dozen liquid staking protocols.

Thats because it addresses a key issue with Ethereums so-called proof-of-stake security system, which was adopted in September 2022.

In a proof-of-stake system, security, as well as the privilege of confirming and ordering transactions, comes from users willing to lock up, or stake, their Ether in exchange for a modest annual yield.

Liquid staking protocols address the opportunity cost that comes with locking away ones Ether by issuing derivative tokens, which typically trade at par with Ether and are accepted in its stead by decentralised exchanges and lending protocols.

Filecoin isnt a proof-of-stake blockchain, and Schwartz prefers to call GLIF a liquid leasing protocol.

That said, the problem space the GLIF is filling for Filecoin is pretty much the same problem space that, say, Lido is building for Ethereum, or Jito for Solana, he said, referring to other blockchains liquid staking protocols. But the mechanisms are different.

Its just the beginning of what could be a busy year for Filecoin.

Earlier this month, Filecoin and Solana project Triton One announced a partnership, in which Triton would store Solana data on Filecoin.

Developers behind billion-dollar decentralised exchange Uniswap deployed the protocol to Filecoin this week. SushiSwap developers launched their decentralised exchange on the blockchain in November.

A lot of these new projects that have components that were built on the [smart contract functionality] theyll come out this year, Schwartz said.

Its going to look like a different Filecoin, simply because whats possible this year was not possible in the three, four years prior, he added.

Aleks Gilbert is a DeFi correspondent for DL News. Have a tip? Contact Aleks at aleks@dlnews.com.

Go here to see the original:

Filecoin is riding the boom in liquid staking - DLNews

16 min read

Stacks is a decade-old blockchain project that aims to establish a decentralised economy on top of Bitcoin.

See my YouTube dive on Stacks here.

As the largest Bitcoin Layer 2 network focusing on smart contracts, Stacks is slated to complete the final piece of a long-standing puzzle plaguing Bitcoin with its upcoming sBTC hard fork. This upgrade introduces a decentralised two-way peg, addressing the Bitcoin write problem.

With sBTC, developers will finally be able to utilise Stacks Clarity programming language to write fully-expressive smart contracts and build cutting-edge decentralised apps (dApps). This enables a vibrant DeFi, NFT, and web3 scene on Stacks, with dApps utilising Bitcoin as a settlement layer.

In short, Stacks is furnishing Bitcoins unparalleled capital, security, and network effects with advanced smart contracts functionality. These are capabilities that builders and web3 users have previously relied on through Ethereum Layer 2 solutions like Arbitrum, sidechains like Polygon, and competing Layer 1 networks like Solana.

Well, the big brother is about to catch up.

In this article, Ill dive into:

Theres a lot to cover, so lets dive in.

Stacks began in 2013 as Blockstack in Princetons computer science department, founded by two PhD students

Continued here:

How High Can Stacks (STX) Go? Building the Future of Bitcoin with Advanced Smart Contracts - DataDrivenInvestor

Blockchain technology, often hailed as the backbone of cryptocurrency, has emerged as a transformative technology over the past few years.

Its decentralized nature and ability to record transactions in a secure and transparent manner differentiate it from traditional databases, marking it as an essential development in the world of finance and beyond.

At its heart, blockchain operates on a distributed ledger that facilitates peer-to-peer transactions without the need for a central authority.

This decentralized ledger is maintained across multiple computers or nodes, ensuring transparency and making it virtually impossible for a single entity to manipulate the data.

Each transaction, which records transactions on the blockchain, is verified by a consensus mechanism, such as proof of work (PoW) or proof of stake (PoS), making every transaction not only secure but also an integral part of the digital ledger.

Smart contracts, or self-executing contracts, are a pivotal innovation brought forth by blockchain technology, offering automated solutions across various sectors. Heres how they stand out:

Automatically execute the terms of a contract when predefined conditions are met, eliminating the need for intermediaries.

Significantly reduce paperwork and administrative overhead, making transactions faster and more efficient.

Encoded with cryptographic hash offer a higher level of security against fraud and unauthorized access.

Every party involved in the contract has access to the terms and conditions, ensuring complete transparency.

From finance and insurance to supply chain management and beyond are versatile in their application.

These features of smart contracts highlight their role in not just enhancing the efficiency and security of transactions but also in extending the transformative impact of blockchain technology beyond the realm of digital currencies, particularly in their ability to validate transactions.

When it comes to supplying chain management, blockchain offers unparalleled benefits in transparency and security.

Recording transactions in a transparent manner, it allows all parties within the chain to track the movement of goods in real-time, thereby conducting transactions securely, reducing the risk of fraud and improving efficiency.

Despite its transformative potential, blockchain technology encounters several challenges:

The future of blockchain is promising, with continuous innovation aimed at overcoming current limitations.

As the technology continues to evolve, its application is expected to expand beyond cryptocurrency and finance, impacting various industries in a secure and transparent manner.

Understanding blockchain technology, with its ability to facilitate secure, transparent transactions without intermediaries, stands as the backbone of cryptocurrency and a beacon of transformative technology.

As nodes across the network agree on the validity of transactions, blockchains decentralized ledger reinforces the importance of transparency and security in the digital age.

With its scalability challenges being addressed, blockchains potential to revolutionize traditional databases, ensuring transparency and security across transactions, is more tangible than ever.

Read the original here:

Blockchain Essentials: Understanding the Backbone of Crypto - Geeks World Wide

Coindar

BTSE will list Fetch.ai (FET) on March 6th.

Refer to the official tweet by FET:

FET Info

Fetch.ai's FET, a utility token, is the bedrock for discovering, creating, deploying, and training digital twins, playing an essential role in smart contracts and oracles on the platform. With FET, users can build and deploy their digital twins on the network. The token also allows developers to access machine-learning utilities for training autonomous digital twins and deploying collective intelligence on the network. Additionally, validation nodes can stake FET tokens to facilitate network validation, enhancing their reputation in the process.

The technological architecture of Fetch.ai consists of four distinctive elements. The Digital Twin Framework offers modular components to help teams construct marketplaces, skills, and intelligence for digital twins. The Open Economic Framework provides search and discovery capabilities for digital twins. The Digital Twin Metropolis is a collection of smart contracts that maintain an immutable record of agreements between digital twins on a WebAssembly (WASM) virtual machine. Lastly, the Fetch.ai Blockchain employs multi-party cryptography and game theory to ensure secure, censorship-resistant consensus and rapid chain-syncing to support digital twin applications.

Among the platform's key components is the learner, wherein each participant represents a unique private dataset and machine learning system. The global market emerges as a product of a collective learning experiment, with a machine learning model trained by the learners collectively. The Fetch.ai Blockchain supports smart contracts, allowing secure and auditable coordination and governance. Finally, the platform includes a decentralized data layer based on IPFS, facilitating the sharing of machine learning weights among all learners involved.

Read the original post:

Fetch.ai to Be Listed on BTSE on March 6th - TradingView

IN INDIA NATIONAL elections are looming. Voters are expected to go to the polls in April and May. Narendra Modi, the prime minister, hopes to win a third term in office. To that end he has been playing up his religious devotion. On January 22nd Mr Modi inaugurated a new temple to Ram, in Ayodhya, a northern city believed by devotees to be that Hindu gods birthplace. The temple was built on land previously occupied by a centuries-old mosque, which was torn down by a Hindu-nationalist mob in 1992. Addressing a crowd of supporters after the ceremony, which marked the unofficial start of his campaign for re-election, Mr Modi claimed the new construction was not just a divine temple but a temple of Indias vision, philosophy and direction. What did he mean?

Equating Hinduism and India in this way is one of the main tenets of Mr Modis ideology: Hindutva, or Hinduness. Adherents of Hindutva, including many members of Mr Modis Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), believe in the hegemony of Hinduism in Indiato the extent that they consider Hindu and Indian culture synonymous. Critics fear the BJP aims to to turn the country of 1.4bn people, 80% of whom are Hindus, from a secular state into a Hindu one. BJP officials deny this. They say they are trying to establish a Hindu national identity suppressed for centuries by Muslim and British invaders.

Hindutva originated in the anti-colonial movements of the early 20th century. In 1922, while in jail for anti-British activities, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar wrote The Essentials of Hindutva, a pamphlet offering an ethno-nationalist definition of Indian civilisation. A Hindu, he argued, was anyone for whom India was both a fatherland and a holy land.

Savarkar, an atheist, took a flexible view of whom could be considered a Hindu. Jains and Buddhists could be. But Muslims and Christians, as adherents of non-Indic religions, could not be part of the Hindu nation unless they renounced their faith. Contemporary Hindu ideologues tend to say that India embraces citizens of all faithsbut requires them to be loyal to an Indian nation defined by Hinduism. In support of this demand, they often cite an imagined golden age of Hindu kingsand decry the centuries-long period of colonial rule, under Muslim then Christian invaders, that followed. Millions of Hindus, they say, were forcibly converted to Islam or Christianity during that dark period. They often argue that their critics suffer from a colonial mindset.

After India gained independence in 1947, Savarkars vision lost out to the more secular, inclusive one preferred by Jawaharlal Nehru, Indias first prime minister, and other framers of the new Indian constitution. Yet groups such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a paramilitary volunteer outfit that Mr Modi joined as a child, continued to promote Hindutva and Hindu nationalism.

Their efforts have been hugely boosted, since the 1980s, by the rise of the BJP from the margins of national politics to centre stage. In power since 2014, Mr Modi has modernised Hindutva, making it symbolic of Indias national greatness. Alongside this, his party has also pushed many Hindu-nationalist priorities. In 2019 his government revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, hitherto the countrys only Muslim-majority state, and split it into two territories that are governed from Delhi. Multiple states ruled by the BJP have tightened laws against cow slaughter and religious conversion, ostensibly to protect Hindus from nefarious attempts to convince them to abandon their religion. The government promotes vegetarianism, which is mostly practised by high-caste Hindus. A currently-suspended plan to establish a national registry of citizens and amend the citizenship law could put the rights of millions of Muslim Indians at risk.

The BJPs opponents say the main effect of these policies has been to relegate non-Hindu Indians, particularly Muslims, to the status of second-class citizens. It has also empowered Hindu-nationalist vigilante groups. Such groups roam neighbourhoods for signs of illegal cow slaughter or attempts by Muslim men to seduce Hindu girls and convert them (a conspiracy theory known as love jihad). They frequently operate with impunity, often alongside the police. When Mr Modi inaugurated the Ram temple the government encouraged citizens to celebrate the event as a moment of national pride. Many were eager to do so. But the celebrations carried a warning to those who demurred. Some neighbourhood associations sent notices to refuseniks encouraging them to pack up and move elsewhere.

Supporters and critics of Mr Modi differ on whether the consecration of the temple at Ayodhya was indeed a moment of national pride. Either way, the states unambiguous promotion of the event appeared to mark a significant break with the secular principles enshrined in Indias constitution.

See original here:

What is Hindutva, the ideology of India's ruling party? - The Economist

Appalled Hindus are asking for resignation of General Mills CEO Jeffrey L.Harmening with an official apology from the company for non-disclosure of beef in its Yoplait yogurts, and their immediate recall from the market.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada, said that it was shocking for Hindus to learn that popular Yoplait yogurts, which they had been eating for years, contained beef; while beef was not explicitly mentioned under the ingredients listed on the Yoplait packages/boxes.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, stated that Yoplait yogurts contained gelatin, but the source of gelatin was not mentioned under the Ingredients on packages/boxes. When Zed contacted General Mills, its Consumer Care department responded: The source of Gelatin in all Yoplait Yogurt Products is beef.

Consumption of beef is highly conflicting to Hindu beliefs. Cow, the seat of many deities, is sacred and has long been venerated in Hinduism, Rajan Zed points out.

It was a very serious issue for the devotees and would severely hurt their feelings if they would come to know that they were unknowingly eating beef-laced Yoplait yogurts, Zed said. General Mills, which claims to be an innovative company that stands for good, should not be in the business of hurting the sentiments of trusting consumers and communities and contradicting its own statement of Do the Right Thing, All the Time, Zed added.

Rajan Zed further said that it was hard to comprehend why General Mills Inc., which claims We make foodthe world loves: 100 brands. In 100 countries. Across six continents., did not mention explicitly under the ingredients on the package/box the source of gelatin used in its products. It was highly insensitive on its part, according to Zed.

Now is the time for General Mills to admit their serious error of not being transparent enough to mention in clear and simple terms what was inside the package/box so that an ordinary consumer could make right and appropriate choices, Zed said. Moreover, in the future, General Mills should explicitly list beef in the ingredients on the package/box when beef was present in the product; Zed added.

Besides the CEO resignation and official apology, Zed urged General Mills to recall all Yoplait packages/boxes containing gelatin where source of gelatin was not clearly mentioned, and later replace these with packages/boxes which markedly declared source of gelatin under the ingredients label.

Read more from the original source:

Hindu Group Seeks Resignation Of General Mills CEO For Non-Disclosure Of Beef In Yoplait Yogurts - Eurasia Review

CAMBRIDGE, MAScholar Swayam Bagariahas been named Assistant Professor of Hindu Studies at Harvard Divinity School. His appointment took effect January 1, 2024.

Bagaria was most recently a Postdoctoral Fellow in Hindu Studies at HDS and was named to that position in 2022. Prior to his time at HDS, Bagaria was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Virginia in the College Fellows Program. He received his PhD in anthropology from Johns Hopkins University in 2020.

I am thrilled to welcome Swayam Bagaria to the HDS faculty, said HDS DeanMarla F. Frederick. Professor Bagaria is not only an emerging scholar, but also a proven and appreciated teacher. His ethnographic perspective on lived religion today and his research on the relationship between classical Hinduism and popular Hinduism in contemporary India will allow Hindu Studies to better flourish at HDS and Harvard. His appointment pushes forward our effort to continue to develop Hindu Studies and a Hindu Ministry Program at the Divinity School.

An anthropologist interested in the psychosocial aspect of religion, particularly Hinduism, Bagarias work combines computational, cognitive, and socio-cultural methods to understand the formation and persistence of religious and religion-like beliefs and commitments in contemporary India.

I am excited to join HDS at what seems like an inflection point in the history of the School. Religion, even if just as a cluster of biases or as a set of ethical constraints, has always been important for most of our endeavors in the world but it was rarely acknowledged as such, said Bagaria. My strength has always been my curiosity and receptivity to different disciplinary frameworks and methods. I find that reframing a problem from multiple perspectives and understanding the tradeoffs between them can break the rut of being trapped in scholarly echo chambers. Practically, I try and achieve this in my research collaborations but even more so in my teaching.

In his first book, Bagaria provides a new framework to understand the bespoke internal plurality of Hinduism and its capacity to allow a diverse set of regional sects with their own set of beliefs and practices and with differing states of cultural and social organization to subsist.

Bagarias second book is on the relation between spirituality and mental health in India in the last century.

He has also written on the impact that an acknowledgement of the salience of religious identity and belief in India has had on thedesign of constitutional orders,the framing of foreign policy, and on understandingthe economics of dead assets. Other interests include using computational social science to study belief formation, comparative constitutional law, contemporary psychedelic sciences, and the cultural economics of religion.

At Harvard Divinity School, he teaches a year long course on history of psychotherapy and psychiatry in India and its engagement with the spiritual and cultural aspects of religious belief, as well as elective courses on comparative constitutional law, the ethics and economics of caste, and an introductory class on social science research methods.

Swayam Bagaria is already a much-appreciated member of our faculty, bringing to campus fresh expertise regarding Hindu temples, Hindu and civil law codes, methods in ethnographic study, and insights into the varieties of living Hinduism, saidFrancis X. Clooney, S.J., Parkman Professor of Divinity and Professor of Comparative Theology and search committee chair for the tenure-track position in Hindu Studies. As HDS expands Hindu studies and strengthens the place of Hindu perspectives in ministry studies, Swayam will be an essential person, much appreciated in both the academic and ministerial dimensions of HDS.

Visit link:

Swayam Bagaria Named Assistant Professor of Hindu Studies at Harvard Divinity School - India New England

In Nepal, a growing Hindu nationalist movement is calling for the country to adopt Hinduism as its state religion and reinstate the countrys Hindu monarchy. Now there is concern over recent clashes between Hindu nationalists and police. Analysts say the movement stems from a combination of disillusionment with the government, inspiration from neighboring India, and social media influencers. Henry Wilkins reports from Kathmandu.

Read the original post:

Hindu Nationalism Spreading in Nepal - Voice of America - VOA News