Comparison of BTC Layer 2 Solutions: Analysis of Native Characteristics, Decentralization, and Practicality

robot
Abstract generation in progress

Analyzing the Five Major BTC Layer 2 Solutions: Which is More Native, Decentralized, and Practical?

Recently, the Bitcoin Layer 2 network has become a hot topic in the crypto market, with various solutions emerging one after another. From a technical implementation perspective, they can be roughly divided into five categories: Bitcoin Sidechains, UTXO + Client Verification, Taproot Consensus, Multi-signature + EVM, and Rollup. This article will analyze the advantages and disadvantages of these solutions from three dimensions: Bitcoin's native characteristics, Decentralization level, and practical implementation level.

The importance of these three dimensions lies in: the native nature of Bitcoin determines whether it can gain recognition from the Bitcoin community; decentralization is the core of blockchain, relating to the security of BTC management; the level of implementation directly tests the feasibility of the solution.

1. Bitcoin Sidechains

Bitcoin sidechains are independent scalability blockchains from Bitcoin, typically managed through multi-signature methods, mapping BTC on the second layer chain.

  1. Native nature of Bitcoin: Poor, difficult to gain support from the Bitcoin community.

  2. Degree of Decentralization: Generally poor, asset security relies on multi-signers.

  3. Degree of Implementation: Existing for many years, but with limited ecological development, mainly constrained by decentralization and asset security issues.

2. UTXO + Client Verification

Off-chain ledger computation based on the Bitcoin UTXO model, using client-side verification to ensure authenticity. Typical representatives include RGB and BitVM.

  1. Bitcoin's Native Nature: Emphasizes nativeness, but the implementation difficulty is extremely high.

  2. Degree of Decentralization: Adopts distributed client verification, decentralized without network consensus.

  3. Degree of implementation: still in the theoretical stage, facing great uncertainty.

3. Taproot Consensus

A second-layer solution built on the three native technologies of Bitcoin: ( Schnorr signatures, MAST contracts, and the Bitcoin light node network ).

  1. Native nature of Bitcoin: Completely based on Bitcoin's native technology, highly native and feasible.

  2. Degree of Decentralization: Achieve decentralized Bitcoin management through a BFT consensus network composed of 1000+ Bitcoin light nodes.

  3. Degree of implementation: Stable operation for 8 months, processing 6 million transactions, over 30 ecological projects.

4. Multi-signature + EVM

Users will transfer BTC to a multi-signature address to generate new BTC on the EVM chain. The implementation is simple, but the essence remains a sidechain.

  1. Bitcoin's native quality: There is almost no native quality.

  2. Degree of Decentralization: Asset security completely relies on the multisigners designated by the project party.

  3. Degree of implementation: low technical threshold, easy to achieve, but tests the management ability of multi-signers.

Five, Rollup

The Ethereum L2 solution will be introduced to Bitcoin, but Bitcoin does not support Rollup verification.

  1. Bitcoin's Native Nature: Poor, difficult to gain support from core Bitcoin users.

  2. Degree of Decentralization: The issues of asset management and the decentralization of the second layer ledger have not yet been resolved.

  3. Implementation Level: The difficulty of realization is not high, some projects have already taken shape, but still face challenges such as asset management and ledger trust.

Summary

The five major BTC Layer 2 solutions each have their advantages and disadvantages. Bitcoin sidechains find it difficult to gain mainstream support; multi-signature + EVM are easy to replicate but have low decentralization; UTXO + client validation has strong native characteristics but is difficult to implement; Rollups draw from Ethereum but have not resolved fundamental issues; Taproot demonstrates a relatively balanced performance in terms of native characteristics, decentralization, and implementation, making it worth paying attention to.

Analyzing the five hottest BTC L2 solutions, which has the most Bitcoin native and practical application?

BTC-1.69%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 8
  • Share
Comment
0/400
ILCollectorvip
· 07-21 00:38
Taproot is really good.
View OriginalReply0
FlashLoanPrincevip
· 07-18 14:36
Headache, too much technology.
View OriginalReply0
NftMetaversePaintervip
· 07-18 01:47
fascinating implementation, tho taproot lacks pure algorithmic elegance tbh...
Reply0
OnchainDetectivevip
· 07-18 01:44
It is evident that there is significant capital deployment behind Taproot. After in-depth analysis, key addresses have been identified.
View OriginalReply0
PoetryOnChainvip
· 07-18 01:41
Taproot is the true god!
View OriginalReply0
HodlBelievervip
· 07-18 01:41
The ROI research is the highest, the 200 daily chart does not deceive me.
View OriginalReply0
DoomCanistervip
· 07-18 01:40
So many routes? I'm dizzy.
View OriginalReply0
AirDropMissedvip
· 07-18 01:28
There will be a fully on-chain one sooner or later.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate app
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)