Rootstock (RSK) Overview and Rating

Rootstock (RSK) whitepaper is dated back to November, 2015. It proposed, basically, to improve the BTC network by supplementing it with several enhancement features, among which the most important is the Turing completeness, which extends smart contracts functionality to Bitcoin. Citing the authors: “We believe that new use cases are necessary in order for Bitcoin to become the leading global cryptocurrency, and that adding smart-contract capabilities is key to secure that future.”

On the “Vision” side of the rating it earns them “A-” (“-” was added because RSK platform appeals primarily to BTC and ETH developers communities, which, although, very large, is not, however, all-inclusive).

On 23 pages authors of this comprehensive piece managed to systematically outline the main underlying architecture’s features of the platform, such, for example, as federated governance model, new opcode with int32 arithmetic, dynamic hybrid merged mining (in addition, EVM contracts might be executed on RSK), delayed transaction inclusion (reduces number of orphans, and, consequently, allows to increase the efficiency of block verification on a geographically widely distributed network), flagging empty blocks headers (which, also, increases inclusion) and others. Strong “A” on the “System” side of the rating.

Additionally, the main platform currency “SmartBitcoins” (SBTC), which is pegged to BTC and all of which are created from Bitcoins coming from its blockchain, which then are locked and unlocked in RSK, gains this paper strong “A” on the “Tokenomics” side.

Regretfully, the format of this review doesn’t allow me to describe all remarkable features of the RSK protocol. Overall, this paper is strongly recommended.

The main weak point of this paper, however, is its “Entrepreneurship” side, which I can’t rate better than “C”.

Of course, touching “mundane” and “non-scientific” issues of projects’ team, business processes as well as costs and profits was not in the fashion back then. Moreover, it was considered unnecessary because, most of DLT community prior to 2017 was persuaded that truly decentralized platforms do not require any official business organization or even an identifiable team of developers standing behind it. Well, now it is different, I guess.

If our crypto-community will not support independent ratings, who else will? Please, visit my Patreon page:

Rating: AA-CA

RE: @reneqNET

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store