At the end of the article on April 23rd, a reader left a long comment discussing various aspects of Bitcoin, including on-chain assets, DMT-NAT, and decentralization. I largely agree with their views on Bitcoin, Ethereum, and decentralization. This article mainly shares my views on DMT-NAT and other Bitcoin on-chain assets. Regarding DMT-NAT, this Bitcoin on-chain asset, I bought some when it first emerged, and I shared my views on this asset in an article from 2013 to 2014 (I think it was a Q&A section). However, I can't find the specific article now. Like other once-popular Bitcoin on-chain assets (such as inscriptions, runes, BRC-20, SRC-20, etc.), they are still in my possession. Every time I see them, they remind me of my past hopes for Bitcoin on-chain assets and the Bitcoin ecosystem. Each time I recall and summarize that period of history, I always reflect on some of the experiences and lessons learned. I will try my best to share and summarize my views on these Bitcoin on-chain assets in relatively simple language. Whether it's DMT-NAT or any on-chain Bitcoin asset, we can generally view them as being implemented through two steps: The first step is to write the information representing the characteristics and state of these assets into the Bitcoin chain in character form. The second step is to use an algorithm that can recognize this information to interpret what it represents. Which part of this information represents the asset type, is it DMT-NAT or BRC-20? Which part represents the asset quantity, is it 100 or...? 1000; which part represents the asset holder, is it account A or account B? ...... In these two steps, the first step has a smaller problem and can be considered close to decentralization. To some extent, this information, once written to the Bitcoin chain, is not easily tampered with. The second step, however, is the key to the entire implementation process and also its weakness. Anyone who has participated in these Bitcoin on-chain assets should remember that when participating in an asset (such as DMT-NAT), you are always told to download a XXX wallet. Why is it specifically required to tell participants to download a XXX wallet instead of simply asking them to download any Bitcoin wallet or providing a broad list of wallets? This is where the second step above comes into play. As I just mentioned, to interpret the state of this asset (i.e., to interpret the information written to the Bitcoin chain), there must be an algorithm capable of recognizing this information. However, this algorithm is not part of the general Bitcoin consensus protocol; it is only a specific protocol, or rather, a small-scale consensus formed within a small circle (such as the DMT-NAT community and enthusiasts). Therefore, to be able to parse and support this type of asset (DMT-NAT), a specific algorithm needs to be written into the wallet, and only a few cutting-edge wallet developers, not all Bitcoin wallet developers, can do this. Specifically regarding the asset DMT-NAT, wallets that can support it must be those that support specific protocols such as Ordinals and Tap Protocol, rather than general Bitcoin wallets. Let's take the implementation process of DMT-NAT as an example. The specific process of the first step above is: using inscription technology (inscription with the Ordinal protocol) to write its asset information onto the Bitcoin blockchain. The specific process of the second step above is as follows: Use a wallet capable of parsing the Digital Matter Theory (DMT) protocol to interpret the asset information read from the Bitcoin blockchain. More specifically, the DMT protocol requires wallets to parse the following fields (see the link at the end of the article for more details): "p": "tap", "op": "dmt-deploy", "tick": "nat", The definitions of the above three fields are... This is unique to DMT-NAT. Other Bitcoin on-chain assets, such as BRC-20, have different definitions for the above three fields, as follows: "p": "brc-20", "op": "mint", "tick": "ordi", By comparison, we can see that each Bitcoin on-chain asset has its own unique definition, and therefore its own unique parsing algorithm. However, these parsing algorithms are not part of the Bitcoin universal consensus protocol. Therefore, currently, only a very small number of pioneering nodes among the entire Bitcoin network nodes support this protocol. These nodes are willing to contribute to promoting this ecosystem, or are willing to lead this ecosystem, or for various other reasons. Because the support for these assets is limited to only a very small number of nodes/wallets, the risk of centralization becomes apparent. If, in extreme circumstances, these few nodes are all wiped out (technically, this isn't difficult to achieve; it just depends on whether the attacker has any benefit or whether the cost-benefit ratio is worthwhile), then the entire DMT-NAT asset will be in grave danger. This is why I say this is the key and the weakness in the whole process. DMT-NAT is the same for any other Bitcoin on-chain asset (including inscriptions, etc.). Of course, if we visit the relevant websites for DMT-NAT today, we'll find that there are "quite a few" wallets that support it. These include not only Bitcoin wallets but also Ethereum wallets (such as LittleFox), and even Uniswap supports it for transactions. How is this possible? How can Ethereum also support Bitcoin assets? In reality, the so-called "DMT-NAT" assets supported by Ethereum wallets and exchanges are not native to the Bitcoin network, but rather "packaged assets" that have been transferred from Bitcoin to Ethereum by enthusiasts or small teams using cross-chain bridges. Fundamentally, these assets, when traced back to their origins, still come down to those specific nodes that support DMT-NAT/wallets. Returning to the previously mentioned centralization risk, how do we address this risk? In my view, there are only two ways: One is to form a new blockchain network with strong consensus, where all nodes support this resolution algorithm. This network can then be used to thoroughly resolve and support DMT-NAT assets. The second approach is to completely integrate this specific algorithm/specific protocol (i.e., the DMT-NAT protocol) into Bitcoin's general consensus protocol. The first approach is quite difficult. How can the initiators of DMT-NAT get a vast number of node developers and wallet developers across the Bitcoin ecosystem to participate in building this network and supporting the protocol in their products? Should it be based on incentives or a grand vision? In fact, even the most consensus-driven inscription asset in the entire Bitcoin ecosystem (BRC-20) has not achieved this yet. The second method is the most thorough and permanent solution. As long as the team controlling the Bitcoin universal protocol (CORE) approves adding the DMT protocol to the next Bitcoin update, everything will be fine. But the question is, would the CORE team, which controls the general Bitcoin protocol, be willing? The answer is obvious. They even strongly rejected the inscription protocol, so why would they be willing to accept DMT-NAT? Don't mention the CORE team. I believe many readers of this article are thinking: Bitcoin doesn't need expansion, it doesn't need any on-chain assets, just pure Bitcoin is fine. Some might say, then why not just have a hard fork, letting the enthusiasts and community who support and promote these assets create a "new Bitcoin" that fully supports these Bitcoin on-chain assets? Theoretically and technically, there's nothing wrong with doing this, but the question is, after the fork, will the broader industry consensus recognize the "old Bitcoin" or this "new Bitcoin"? I believe it will still recognize the "old Bitcoin." Therefore, from any perspective, the consensus on this on-chain asset within the entire Bitcoin ecosystem is actually not strong, and I estimate it will be difficult for it to become stronger in the future. I once had high hopes for Bitcoin's on-chain assets and the Bitcoin ecosystem. If the widespread and enthusiastic collective innovation movement within the Bitcoin ecosystem at that time could have been embraced by the CORE team, driving them to upgrade and expand the Bitcoin protocol, then Bitcoin could truly have caught up with or even surpassed Ethereum in terms of ecosystem. However, subsequent realities have forced me to admit that this path is highly unlikely to be viable, and even more difficult to follow in the future. Therefore, I think it's fine for Bitcoin assets and the Bitcoin ecosystem to be a niche hobby and exploration, but it will be extremely difficult for them to become a robust ecosystem and develop into an asset with strong consensus. However, as I've said in previous articles, and I'd like to reiterate: I continue to admire and support those enthusiasts who have been working and contributing to the Bitcoin ecosystem. If they succeed, all the better, but even if they don't, they might stumble upon some unexpected innovations, which is still remarkable. Many major inventions and innovations in the history of science and technology were not planned in advance; they were often discovered accidentally and unintentionally.
Hui Xin
Jasper
Davin
Jixu
Joy