Connect with us

Crypto World

Solving Bitcoin’s gas issue (without a fork)

Published

on

Frederic Fosco

Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.

Every smart contract platform has a fee asset baked in. For example, Ethereum (ETH) has ETH, Solana (SOL) has SOL, but with Bitcoin (BTC), however, things get messy. If you want expressive apps, you usually end up adopting a second network’s economics. 

Advertisement

Summary

  • Bitcoin doesn’t price computation, only block space. Unlike Ethereum or Solana, BTC’s fee market is built around sat/vB for transaction inclusion, not metering smart contract execution.
  • Execution can move off-chain while settlement stays on Bitcoin. Systems like OpNet run contract logic in a Wasm VM while anchoring payments and final state changes through normal BTC transactions.
  • BTC can function as the gas asset without a new token. By pricing execution costs in satoshis and settling interactions through Bitcoin transactions, apps avoid creating a second fee economy.

On Stacks, for example, you pay fees in STX. On EVM-style Bitcoin layers, you might be told that BTC is the gas token, but it’s typically an L2-native representation with EVM-like conventions (including 18 decimals), and you’re still operating inside that L2 environment. Bitcoin itself, meanwhile, already has a clean fee market, where users bid for block space in sat/vB, and miners prioritize higher fee rates.

With this in mind, what if a smart contract interaction could be initiated and paid for as a normal Bitcoin transaction, with fees in BTC terms (no extra gas token or fork) while the smart part runs elsewhere and stays provably tied back to Bitcoin? OpNet is setting out to provide an answer. 

Advertisement

Bitcoin doesn’t meter compute (that’s a problem)

Bitcoin’s fee market is excellent at one thing: pricing block space. You compete in sat/vB, miners pick the highest fee rates, and the network stays simple and adversarially robust. What Bitcoin does not do is run a general-purpose execution environment where the chain can measure and charge for arbitrary computation. Bitcoin Script is deliberately stateless and not Turing-complete, specifically lacking loops or gotos, so every node can validate scripts predictably without opening the door to unbounded computation.

That’s why most Bitcoin smart contract approaches end up placing execution on a separate system that can meter compute and run a fee market of its own. Once you have that separate execution layer, it usually comes with a separate fee asset (Stacks, for instance, charges fees in STX).

This isn’t ideal, and a system where you could keep payment within Bitcoin’s native fee market while moving execution elsewhere would be preferable.

Execution isn’t what Bitcoin needs to do

Once you accept that Bitcoin Script is intentionally limited (stateless and not designed for unbounded computation), you start thinking about how to make Bitcoin settle the results and the payments.

Advertisement

Indeed, execution can happen in a dedicated virtual machine that’s built to run smart contract logic deterministically, while Bitcoin remains the base layer that timestamps, orders, and prices the interactions through its existing fee market.  In OpNet’s design, contract logic is evaluated by a Wasm-oriented VM (OP-VM), while the broader node stack is explicitly built to manage and execute smart contracts using Bitcoin’s existing transaction and UTXO mechanics.

Crucially, this isn’t paired with a new fee asset. Bitcoin doesn’t need to meter computation to be the gas currency. It needs to be the final settlement layer that everything ultimately pays into and anchors to.

What a BTC-paid contract call looks like

Our interaction model follows a simulate-then-spend flow rather than a conventional smart contract execution pattern, with the final execution step taking place as an actual Bitcoin transaction. First, your app calls a contract method in simulation mode. That request goes through a provider to an OPNet node, which executes the contract in its VM and returns a CallResult (including gas/fee estimates) without broadcasting anything to Bitcoin.

If the call is state-changing, you take that CallResult and send it as an execution. At this point, the library builds a Bitcoin transaction, signs it, and broadcasts it to the Bitcoin network. Two points are worth remembering:

Advertisement
  • Miner fees are Bitcoin-native. You choose a feeRate in sat/vB, optionally add a priorityFee in sats, and set a hard cap on fee spending via maximumAllowedSatToSpend (the parameter is literally named maximumAllowedSatToSpend).
  • The contract target is expressed as a P2OP-style contract address. The contract instance exposes its p2op address format, and transactions reference a “p2op contract address” as the contract destination.

Meanwhile, OpNet’s own compute metering still exists. But it’s priced in satoshis (estimated SATS Gas, refunds in SATS, etc.), so the unit never drifts into a separate token economy. 

Less friction, cleaner incentives

Users no longer have to adopt a second fee economy just to interact with apps. On Bitcoin, fees are already an auction for block space, priced per byte and paid to miners. When contract calls are just Bitcoin transactions, you’re back on familiar ground (with sat/vB fees, mempool churn, and miner incentives), without having to learn a separate gas token market.

Also, the tooling leans into standard Bitcoin workflows such as UTXO handling, provider connections, and even offline/cold signing. Contracts live in a Wasm runtime and are written in AssemblyScript, aiming for Solidity-like expressiveness without pretending Bitcoin Script suddenly became a VM.

Bitcoin as gas, without a second token

The claim that BTC cannot function as gas usually rests on the assumption that the base layer must meter computation to price it. Bitcoin does not meter computation; it meters block space and settles value. 

The solution is to let a virtual machine handle execution deterministically, and then route every state-changing interaction through a standard Bitcoin transaction, where fees are expressed in familiar terms such as sat/vB and capped in satoshis. In our case, this is implemented at the client level through parameters like feeRate and maximumAllowedSatToSpend.

Advertisement

So maybe BTC-as-gas is truly plausible. Fees stay BTC-native from end to end, while the contract runtime stays WebAssembly-based (AssemblyScript → Wasm), which keeps the logic expressive without changing the fee currency.

Frederic Fosco

Frederic Fosco

Advertisement

Frederic Fosco, also known as Danny Plainview, is a co-founder of OP_NET and has been involved in Bitcoin since 2013. He launched OP_NET to make Bitcoin natively programmable, unlocking smart contracts and DeFi primitives directly on layer-1. His focus is building real on-chain functionality without bridges, custodians, wrapping, or synthetic Bitcoin, keeping self-custody and decentralization non-negotiable.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Bank of England Comes Around on Stablecoins

Published

on

Bank of England Comes Around on Stablecoins

The Bank of England’s (BOE) position on stablecoins is evolving to a more friendly stance, but according to the bank’s deputy governor, constructive dialogue with the industry is still lacking.

The UK’s central bank launched a consultation on stablecoins in November last year. Some of the proposed requirements drew the ire of crypto industry representatives, who claimed they could stifle innovation. 

Over the past few months, the bank has been working with industry groups to develop its stance on stablecoins. These include revising backing requirements and rethinking account limits. 

Some industry observers believe that the bank is coming around on stablecoins, but there is still work to be done.

Advertisement

Bank of England open to feedback on stablecoin risk

On Nov. 10, 2025, the BOE released a document outlining its vision for a stablecoin regulatory regime. This came two years after an initial discussion paper which, according to the bank, included the perspectives of “banks, non-bank payment service providers, payment system operators, trade associations, academia, and individuals.”

At the time, industry observers told Cointelegraph that BOE was overstating the perceived risks that stablecoins pose to the UK economy. Tom Rhodes, chief legal officer at UK-based stablecoin issuer Agant, said at the time that the bank was “disproportionately cautious and restrictive.”

One of the more controversial measures was stablecoin holdings limits, namely 20,000 pounds for individuals and 10 million pounds for businesses that accept it as a form of payment.

Now, it appears that the bank is coming around. Speaking before the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee on Wednesday, BOE Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden told MPs that it is open to reconsidering those limits. 

Advertisement
Breeden speaks before the House of Lords. Source: Parliament

Breeden said that the proposed limits were to mitigate the risk of a large migration of deposits to stablecoins, which has the potential to destabilize banks.

“We proposed holding limits as a way of managing that risk. We are open to feedback on other ways of achieving it,” she said.

However, feedback itself also seems to be an issue, at least according to Breeden. She said, “The pressure from the industry to do it in a different way is very real. What we’ve been a bit disappointed with, is nobody said, ‘Why not do it this way?’” 

“I don’t think we’ve yet had constructive engagement on a different way to solve the problem that I might have hoped for. Instead, what we’ve had is ‘don’t do this,’ and ‘I understand why you want to do something’ as opposed to filling the gap.”

Rhodes told Cointelegraph on Thursday that this isn’t necessarily the case. “Over the past two years we have reviewed thousands of pages of consultations from the FCA and the Bank, attended numerous roundtable meetings, and submitted hundreds of pages of input both ourselves and as part of trade associations.”

Advertisement

He said that the main challenge for the industry and regulators is that they are making a “comprehensive regulatory regime for a market that has yet to develop.” 

Rhodes explained:

“It’s not possible to provide concrete data in the circumstances, which is why lighter touch principles-based regimes are appropriate at this nascent stage.” 

Nick Jones, the founder and CEO of UK-based digital assets platform Zumo, said, “Industry groups have been working hard, and to tight deadlines, to make tangible recommendations.”

He said the feedback could be more constructive if the bank followed the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Spring model. These time-boxed workshops focus on practical applications of the technology to answer regulators’ questions. 

Advertisement

The ‘multi-moneyverse’ and what’s next for stablecoins in the UK

Breeden opened her remarks with assurances that at the bank, “we do want to see tokenized money issued by non-banks.”

“We can have what I call a ‘multi-moneyverse’ with greater choice and competition today.”

Such a system, she said in a September speech, is “characterised by choice across different forms of money and payment; with technology driving faster, cheaper, and more innovative payments for the benefit of business, households, and users of financial markets; and — critically — with the whole system underpinned by trust in money itself.”

Inter-monetary competition and its purported benefits have been a core argument from the crypto industry. Rhodes said, “Stablecoins being part of a competitive multi-moneyverse represents a substantial and positive evolution in the Bank’s thinking.”

Related: UK dodges ‘US malaise’ as regulator finalizes crypto rules

Advertisement

However, Rhodes noted that this was in “sharp contrast” to BOE Governor Andrew Bailey’s statements, where “he doesn’t see stablecoins as a substitute for commercial bank money.”

Jones said, “Over time, we’ve seen the Bank of England’s scepticism towards digital assets start to dissipate.” It’s “encouraging” that the central bank is more receptive to competing forms of money and that pound sterling-backed stablecoins can co-exist with fiat money.

“It’s clear that different emerging types will fit different use cases — for example, large institutional capital is more comfortable with tokenised deposits while smaller retail payments companies can tap into the network effect of stablecoins,” he said.

The next step, per Rhodes, is a final policy position from the BOE, but revisions are still possible.  

Advertisement
The bank expects final rules by the second half of 2026. Source: BOE

The industry is still pushing to remove the holding caps and scrap bank-like capital rules for issuers. Jones said that the latter “are inappropriate for fully-backed issuers, and should be replaced with oversight focused on reserve quality and transparency.”

They also want a reconsideration of reserves. So far, BOE requires issuers to hold 40% of reserve assets in unremunerated Bank of England deposits and up to 60% in high-quality, short-term UK government debt. 

This is based on past runs like the Silicon Valley Bank collapse in 2023 which resulted in the USDC stablecoin losing its peg. Breeden told Reuters, “Those numbers are broadly in line with that. That’s why we’re proposing 40% rather than a smaller number.”

“Regulators should perhaps consider remunerating a portion of the 40% held at the Bank of England to help maintain commercial viability,” said Jones.

“The UK can be one of the leaders in stablecoins, but only if regulation is proportionate and competitive.”

Advertisement

Magazine: All 21 million Bitcoin is at risk from quantum computers