[miscellaneous]

> There is NOTHING that ethereum can do that you can't do with bitcoin.

That is factually incorrect. Bitcoin is not turing complete, Ethereum is. Eg: You can't do loops in Bitcoin, you can in Ethereum.

Perhaps you are speculating about the potential capabilities of sidechains, but they isn't a reality at the present.

[kang]

'Do with' not 'do in'. For example, there could be an ether-tcp that transports data using unused header bytes. Now factually you don't send data 'in' TCP header so TCP-ether might seem better, but actually you can send data 'with' TCP and thus TCP-ether is redundant.

Think of any Ethereum usecase and you can do it with bitcoin.

[ItsMattyG]

>Think of any Ethereum usecase and you can do it with bitcoin.

Yes, but it's a lot harder. Look at for instance the colored coins project vs. implementing a custom token on ethereum.

[aakilfernandes]

x of 1,000 multisig, where each signature is controlled by a tradable token

[kang]

Schnorr Signatures plus Colored coins

[wolfgke]

Aren't these extensions to the Bitcoin protocol (rather than core of it)? This question is curious interest, not a counterargument to yours.

[kang]

Voice can be transmitted as packets using IP, but is VOIP an extension of IP or core use of it? Well, I guess we can call it either, because the end result is similar (but the side-effects are not).

[aakilfernandes]

I am under the impression that colored coins can't be used as inputs in a multisig.

Also, can you expand on Schnorr Signatures

[kang]

They can be, depends on how they have been colored. 1-of-4,294,967,296 multisig is doable in bitcoin theoretically using Schnorr signatures https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/