I think another unique feature of Stacks is that it is the only L2 smart contract solution that supports bitcoin miners continuously via transaction fees and proof of transfer. The other solutions bridge out btc to their ecosystems and it may take years for that to come back to bitcoin and support its economy (wBTC, cbBTC, etc). These other solutions accrue no value to bitcoin and are only interested in leeching btc liquidity. Also, their solutions will and are currently being replicated on Stacks. If I need correcting in my understanding, please feel free to do so.
Hold your horses people. This dude doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, he's no expert that is for sure. There's more holes in this than a block of Swiss cheese. Where to start with this(?) So many factual errors and oversights, not to mention the shoddy writing -explains the awful engagement levels (this dude supposedly has a large following but look at the likes and comment numbers --geez). Let me learn you something Danny boy...
1. “Exploded” might be overstating it. While Ordinals, inscriptions, and BRC-20 tokens drew attention some in 2023, total value locked (TVL) and developer traction on Bitcoin-based DeFi still lag far behind Ethereum and Solana ecosystems.
2. “Bitcoin… is bigger than everything else combined”
This is only true by market cap, not activity, developer base, or DeFi usage. Ethereum outpaces Bitcoin in smart contract usage, TVL, and DeFi users. So this is misleading.
3. “Stacks is now secured by 100% of Bitcoin hashpower”
Stacks anchors to Bitcoin via Proof-of-Transfer and benefits from Bitcoin’s immutability, but it doesn’t actually inherit Bitcoin’s consensus the same way rollups do on Ethereum. Saying “secured by 100% of Bitcoin hashpower” is very misleading Danny boy and might leave readers into thinking it operates like a native Bitcoin extension or rollup. It’s more accurate to say its block finality is aligned with Bitcoin’s.
4. “No consent from Bitcoin miners and always at 100% hashpower capacity”
Your text implies both full Bitcoin security and no dependency on miners. However, if miners don’t participate (e.g. via Proof-of-Transfer), that affects liveness and finality assumptions. It’s worth clarifying how Nakamoto gets consistent security without explicit miner participation don't you think? Call yourself an expert!
5. “sBTC is a decentralized 2-way peg”
Trust-minimized or true 2-way pegs on Bitcoin remain unsolved. sBTC relies on a federated signer model (e.g. BitGo, Copper, etc.)—more secure than custodians, yes, but not “decentralized” in the pure Bitcoin sense. It would be more accurate to say that it is federated non-custodial bridge with industry-trusted validators.
6. “Earn ~5% APY paid in sBTC”
The yield comes from subsidy incentives by Stackers, which is great for bootstrapping but isn’t sustainable long-term unless actual economic activity emerges. It’s worth highlighting this is not protocol-generated yield but a form of pre-mine incentive.
Honestly people, I really wouldn't be spending much of your time listening to this crypto bro. He's a bit out of his depth. Look into it for yourselves...
Great to have someone like you bring the spotlight again on this amazing project and community that is Stacks. Only builders.
Little typo though; sBTC releases Dec 16th *2024*, not 2025 ;)
I think another unique feature of Stacks is that it is the only L2 smart contract solution that supports bitcoin miners continuously via transaction fees and proof of transfer. The other solutions bridge out btc to their ecosystems and it may take years for that to come back to bitcoin and support its economy (wBTC, cbBTC, etc). These other solutions accrue no value to bitcoin and are only interested in leeching btc liquidity. Also, their solutions will and are currently being replicated on Stacks. If I need correcting in my understanding, please feel free to do so.
Forgot to mention that BTC to sBTC and back is tax free (in USA). Same as Lightning Network. Not a sale. No cap gains/losses.
Do I need to move my STX off Coinbase to take advantage of new/upgraded tokens from the hard fork?
Stacks has come a long way since 2019!
I'd like to learn more about the bridge. How does it work, how secure is it, etc? Bridge hacks are so common I'd need to know way more, thanks.
Hold your horses people. This dude doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, he's no expert that is for sure. There's more holes in this than a block of Swiss cheese. Where to start with this(?) So many factual errors and oversights, not to mention the shoddy writing -explains the awful engagement levels (this dude supposedly has a large following but look at the likes and comment numbers --geez). Let me learn you something Danny boy...
1. “Exploded” might be overstating it. While Ordinals, inscriptions, and BRC-20 tokens drew attention some in 2023, total value locked (TVL) and developer traction on Bitcoin-based DeFi still lag far behind Ethereum and Solana ecosystems.
2. “Bitcoin… is bigger than everything else combined”
This is only true by market cap, not activity, developer base, or DeFi usage. Ethereum outpaces Bitcoin in smart contract usage, TVL, and DeFi users. So this is misleading.
3. “Stacks is now secured by 100% of Bitcoin hashpower”
Stacks anchors to Bitcoin via Proof-of-Transfer and benefits from Bitcoin’s immutability, but it doesn’t actually inherit Bitcoin’s consensus the same way rollups do on Ethereum. Saying “secured by 100% of Bitcoin hashpower” is very misleading Danny boy and might leave readers into thinking it operates like a native Bitcoin extension or rollup. It’s more accurate to say its block finality is aligned with Bitcoin’s.
4. “No consent from Bitcoin miners and always at 100% hashpower capacity”
Your text implies both full Bitcoin security and no dependency on miners. However, if miners don’t participate (e.g. via Proof-of-Transfer), that affects liveness and finality assumptions. It’s worth clarifying how Nakamoto gets consistent security without explicit miner participation don't you think? Call yourself an expert!
5. “sBTC is a decentralized 2-way peg”
Trust-minimized or true 2-way pegs on Bitcoin remain unsolved. sBTC relies on a federated signer model (e.g. BitGo, Copper, etc.)—more secure than custodians, yes, but not “decentralized” in the pure Bitcoin sense. It would be more accurate to say that it is federated non-custodial bridge with industry-trusted validators.
6. “Earn ~5% APY paid in sBTC”
The yield comes from subsidy incentives by Stackers, which is great for bootstrapping but isn’t sustainable long-term unless actual economic activity emerges. It’s worth highlighting this is not protocol-generated yield but a form of pre-mine incentive.
Honestly people, I really wouldn't be spending much of your time listening to this crypto bro. He's a bit out of his depth. Look into it for yourselves...