Perhaps it is too late for replicating existing use cases. However, the general idea of running EVM-like smart contracts secured by Bitcoin PoW (e.g. merge mined sidechains) is still quite attractive
Counterparty eventually adopted the EVM, and yet could not get traction for multiple reasons:
1. Network effects already on Ethereum
2. Bitcoin block time too slow and block size too low
3. Counterparty uses Bitcoin as a data layer, but Bitcoin itself cannot recognize Counterparty transactions, so Bitcoin consensus does not secure Counterparty transactions.
Only if you enjoy all of the negatives of EVM-like smart contracts including chain splits, gas problems, subtle bugs that could drive exchanges to insolvency, mass theft, broken multisig, the list goes on...
I don't enjoy the negatives. We'll move to better alternatives as they become available. Until then.. it's just like democracy or free markets.. no demonstrably superior alternatives yet
First off I recognize and appreciate your username :-)
As such, you should know more than anyone how heated the OP_RETURN drama got, and how ANYONE using the BTC chain for anything other than moving money from point A to point B is a complete non-started and will be unanimously opposed by the core development team.
:-) Yeah. There's some baggage there, but I was still surprised nobody wanted this username.
Core devs may not agree with what some users do with the system (current specs/features).. but as the Ethereum miners showed with increase in block size, core devs' philosophical objections may not matter in the end
1. Network effects already on Ethereum
2. Bitcoin block time too slow and block size too low
3. Counterparty uses Bitcoin as a data layer, but Bitcoin itself cannot recognize Counterparty transactions, so Bitcoin consensus does not secure Counterparty transactions.