[cocktailpeanuts]

People are asking you why this counts as "on Bitcoin", and you've been saying throughout this thread it's because it has access to the Bitcoin ledger data. My point is that it pretty much sounds like you're using BTC as an "oracle" (and of course, you're using BTC as settlement, but that's a given, and also doesn't qualify as being "on bitcoin"). Stacks is a separate ledger that pegs itself to Bitcoin, not "on". "Smart contracts on Bitcoin" would be something that's entirely built on the Bitcoin ledger and every smart contract transaction is a Bitcoin transaction that settles.

[muneeb]

What you are describing is similar to what Stacks 1.0 was i.e., directly on top of the Bitcoin chain -- a virtualchain. Every Stacks 1.0 transaction was a Bitcoin transaction.

The lessons we learned from that deployment for 2+ years is that (a) it doesn't scale that well and (b) it's very hard to modify Bitcoin and get new changes accepted (for good reason), so you end up with very limited scripting.

To fix the two limitations of Stacks 1.0, we worked on Stacks 2.0 which has a separate blockchain (so scalability independent of Bitcoin) where settlements still happen on Bitcoin and, more importantly, a full smart contract language without modifying Bitcoin itself: https://clarity-lang.org

[hanniabu]

You pretty much just explained why they're right and how it's not built in bitcoin.

Definitely not a fan how you're trying to bend reality for marketing benefits.

[cft]

When I read "Smart contacts on Bitcoin", I though you have somehow encoded smart contract logic in a novel Bitcoin output script, and that this contract script is thus executed by the Bitcoin miners. If you just use the Bitcoin output scripts to store some data, I would make a better name for your product.