The orthodox definition of BTC L2 has caused controversy. What do overseas bosses think?

Author: OneKey Chinese source: X, @OneKeyCN

Recently, @brian_trollz, the technical editor of Bitcoin Magazine, an old and authoritative Bitcoin media, released the "Reporting Qualification Policy" regarding his magazine's tokens and BTC L2. Among them, the definition of BTC L2 - "Token-less, trustless withdrawals, unable to operate without Bitcoin" - has aroused heated discussions. Let’s take a look at the wonderful comment section and the responses from the big guys.

Someone gave a chart of all BTC L2 (that overseas communities are paying attention to) in the comment area. I hope that "Bitcoin Magazine" can list them one by one. "Seal" to let everyone know what L2 can be reported by them. Bitcoin Magazine CEO responded: We are looking for a full-time L2 reporting writer who will devote time to analyzing the content.

Someone directly asked whether the three L2s that overseas communities are paying more attention to - Liquid, RSK and Stacks - are considered L2s in the eyes of the editor of "Bitcoin Magazine". Spook's reply was: "Liquid and Rootstock meet all three of their BTC L2 criteria, and Stacks does not use non-BTC tokens as native assets (so not)."

Maybe you saw related discussions. Stacks co-founder @muneeb directly tweeted that Bitcoin Magazine will not affect Stacks at all, and believes that only L2 that can best meet user needs and win in the free market is important. He advocated allowing the market to develop freely, and everyone should focus on expanding Bitcoin market share.

Someone asked, if a chain directly says that it is a "side chain" without emphasizing that it is L2, will it be considered L2? Spook replied that sidechains that completely use BTC as the native asset can meet the standards and serve as L2. As for "it cannot operate without Bitcoin", he believes that because this side chain requires BTC to operate, or joint mining, it is also consistent.

Compared with Stacks Lianchuang’s rationality, Bitcoin Frontier Fund managing partner and Pizza Ninja Lianchuang trevor.btc@TO directly expressed a "disappointed" attitude ——Even sarcastically.

Expand to see

He believes that this so-called standard directly affects all those who have their own The BTC L2 of the native token, and it seems to be very "targeted" at Stacks - almost every reputable investment company and analyst in this field puts Stacks in the same position as Liquid and RSK. He said that this kind of move would destroy innovation, which is why no one or institution wanted to build or invest in "cool things" in Bitcoin in the past three years.

For Stacks, he explained in depth that Stacks’ decentralized bridge and security mechanism require its own native token. This token serves its users for a reasonable and legal purpose. Bitcoin Magazine’s argument that a second layer must use BTC as its native token or else it is “bad” is laughable and has no sound technical or economic basis. This is not based on fact but on personal opinion and politics.

Furthermore, as someone who has written three technical review articles for Bitcoin Magazine, he personally feels that "just because he has his own token, Disappointed that a lot of new and interesting BTC L2 was excluded. Even more ironically, he asked rhetorically: It’s a little tasteless that these BTC L2s are still encouraged to sponsor Bitcoin Magazine for hundreds of thousands of dollars while being treated like third-class citizens. Could these L2s be allowed to sponsor magazine media, but not enough to be included in important technical analysis or cover news value and Bitcoin innovation?

Later, he expressed the hope that "Bitcoin Magazine" can reconsider its position, which is based on technical and economic foundations rather than arbitrary personal opinions.  

We are entering a new era of Bitcoin innovation, and the worst thing Bitcoin Magazine can do - is start excluding a large number of them based on arbitrary criteria Bitcoin builder.

KOL@dotkrueger, a well-known investor in the industry, criticized: It is too early to introduce standards now. It looks like Bitcoin Magazine was doing “L2 halal testing” before a true trustless BTC L2 solution even existed.

If you are not "halal" enough, you will be regarded as a "parasite". Why don't you write about the technical challenges/possible solutions first?

Oridnal Market Bioniq CEO @BobBodily did a big review for them. Assuming that according to their standards, basically all solutions that are either too idealistic and cannot be realized, or can be realized first, are excluded. Someone in the comments below joked that basically all ETH L2 cannot be called L2.

It can be seen that the community has a negative attitude, thinking that this standard is too strict and hinders innovation. In fact, similar discussions have occurred many times in the Ethereum community. For example, Buterin supported Plasmas at first, but later changed his tune, and even reversed course many times on some issues.  

So no matter what the "standard" is, it must ultimately be left to the practice of the market. To quote a group friend: "L2 Builder, feel free to fly, we will always be with you."