What do you think of Bitcoin Magazine’s “Three Chapters” on Layer 2?

Interviewer: Wuyue, geek web3

Guests: Kevin He, former Huobi Group Web3 technical leader; Faust, founder of Geek web3< /span>

The two guests talked aboutthe industry status of the Bitcoin ecosystem, their views on the Layer 2 definition proposed by Bitcoin Magazine, My own evaluation method for Bitcoin Layer 2. (Note: These remarks only represent the personal views of the two guests and do not involve the values ​​​​of Geek Web3 itself as a media organization)

Introduction:The beginning of 2024 can be called During the Warring States Period of Bitcoin Layer 2, in just a few months, at least 60 project teams calling themselves Layer 2 emerged in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Due to the lack of authoritative voices in this field, people have little idea what should be considered Layer 2. , there is no clear and organized judgment standard for what should not be regarded as Layer 2.

This kind of ambiguity and disorder not only provides developers and entrepreneurial teams with absolute freedom, but also allows various phenomena of editing and confusing concepts to spread wantonly. .

(The Chinese text of the picture is translated from the original English text of Bitcoin Magazine)

In this chaotic and impetuous time, Bitcoin Magazine relies on its status as a more authoritative media organization in the Bitcoin community to propose a simple set of Bitcoin Layer 2 definition standards. It is not difficult to see that this standard has strong “Bitcoin characteristics” and is very different from the mainstream understanding of Layer 2 in the Ethereum community. The main points of Bitcoin Magazine cover three main points, including:

1. Use Bitcoin as its native asset: Bitcoin Magazine believes that Layer 2 should use Bitcoin as its main token or account unit (Native Token) and as the measurement currency for gas fees.

If the Layer2 project issues its own tokens, it should be backed by bitcoin. (The explanation here is rather vague. Some people think that Bitcoin Magazine seems to mean Inscribed assets like BRC-20).

2. Use Bitcoin as the settlement layer:Layer2 must reserve an exit mechanism for users to enable users to withdraw their assets to Layer1. This evacuation mechanism can be trustless, or there can be a certain assumption of trust.

(It seems to be saying that there must be a bridge relationship between Layer2 and Layer1, or assets must have a mapping relationship between L1 and L2. Cross-chain bridge or assets The exit method does not need to be Trustless, but they did not specify what level of trust should be achieved. And according to this standard, the inscription protocol, the off-chain index protocol, and the original RGB protocol may not be classified as Layer 2. )

3. Dependence on Bitcoin: If Bitcoin completely fails, Layer 2 will also be "dead and toothless". Assuming that Layer1 is down and the so-called "Layer2" is still running, then such a project must not be Bitcoin Layer2.

In addition to the above-mentioned "Three Chapters",Bitcoin Magazine also mentioned CounterParty and Ordinals, pointing out that this type of asset protocol that is dependent on Bitcoin and does not have an independent blockchain structure does not fall into the category of Layer 2; at the same time, some "parasitic Layer 2 protocol does not meet some of the conditions of Bitcoin Layer 2.

But Bitcoin Magazine did not give a clear explanation as to which protocols belong to the so-called "parasitic layer" (which may include the RGB protocol). This also leaves everyone undecided about the point that Bitcoin Magazine wants to express.

After the launch of Bitcoin Magazine’s set of standards, it quickly attracted discussions from many people, including the founder of Stacks sidechain, who also expressed his views . Onekey Chinese official Twitter has observed these Western KOLs who have the right to speak. It is obvious that everyone has mixed opinions on Bitcoin Magazine, and most people even expressed opposition.

Let’s put aside everyone’s subjective position first Regardless of the rationality of the above-mentioned Layer 2 definition standards, Bitcoin Magazine, as a Bitcoin ecological media and research institution with the right to speak, has taken a historic step - triggering a large number of comments on Bitcoin Layer 2 in public. Discussions that define standards and generate support or opposition from people with different positions.

It feels like in August 2023, Dankrad of the Ethereum Foundation declared in a high profile on Twitter that "it doesn't matter if Ethereum is not used as the DA layer." Layer2" is the same. Not surprisingly, the public discussion on the definition of Bitcoin Layer 2 will intensify in the future until most professionals reach a staged consensus.

Based on the strong interest in the narrative of Bitcoin Layer 2 and even modular blockchain technology, Wuyue, the Research Lead of Geek web3, Kevin He, the former Web3 technical director of Huobi Group, and Faust, the founder of geek web3, were invited to conduct an online closed-door communication. This article will sort out the text version of the results of this online exchange to help everyone disenchant the definition standards of Bitcoin Layer 2.

一

Text:1.Fog Moon: In fact, the current Bitcoin ecosystem is very similar to the Wild West in the 19th century in the United States. Many people regard Bitcoin Layer 2 as gold, and major entrepreneurial teams are like a fanatical gold rush. Like others, they cling tightly to the wealth-making gimmick of Layer 2. In the eyes of the two guests, what is the current status of the Bitcoin Layer 2 industry? What do you think of the current Bitcoin ecosystem?

Faust:In my personal eyes, the current Bitcoin Layer 2 track has a tendency to be chaotic and disorderly , that is to sayThere is an overall lack of consensus on the definition of Layer 2 and the objective evaluation criteria for Layer 2. Take the overall perception of the Chinese area as an example. The VCs who invest in the Bitcoin ecosystem, the project teams who end up working on Layer 2, and the OGs who have experienced many rounds of bulls and bears all have very different opinions. Some technical geeks believe that only the UTXO programming model inherits the "fundamental tenet" of Bitcoin, and EVM is a heresy; others believe that if it cannot inherit a high degree of security from Bitcoin, it is not considered Layer 2.

Of course, traders who are keen on trading and geeks who focus on technology have very different ways of viewing Bitcoin Layer 2. Previously, some KOLs believed that exchanges can be regarded as Bitcoin Layer 2. Brother Sun even directly shouted: Tron is also Bitcoin Layer 2. Some KOLs believe that the evaluation indicators of Bitcoin Layer 2 should be different from those of Ethereum Layer 2, and even claim that Bitcoin Layer 2 will definitely surpass Ethereum Layer 2, and then take this opportunity to promote a rather subjective theory.

These phenomena are just the tip of the iceberg of the current Bitcoin ecosystem. The phenomenon of independent standards and self-regulation is common among most people. Of course, all so-called "theories" must be judged by professionals in the end. Many current remarks about Bitcoin Layer 2 are not logically reasonable enough.

In addition, there are also obvious gaps between the Eastern and Western communities, the Western communities, especially those in Europe and the United States There have always been direct and frequent exchanges between practitioners in the country, and the technical atmosphere is stronger than in the Eastern circle. Of course, more importantly, professional people or organizations such as Bitcoin Community OG, Ethereum Foundation, and Celestia Foundation have huge influence in the West, much greater than in the East. This has largely created Value differences between Eastern and Western communities.

In contrast, the Chinese community as a whole has formed a certain closed loop. Everyone is working on their own affairs and is busy with their own three-acre land, and has not yet formed one or several Organizations with strong professionalism and strong publicity capabilities serve as the radiation source of unified values, which brings both freedom and chaos.

Of course, this kind of thing is inherently mixed, but reflected in the technical understanding of Bitcoin Layer 2, we You can clearly feel the difference between the Eastern community and the Western community. However, "Technology is valuable, and the price of creating wealth is also high." Technology is one aspect, and the effect of creating wealth is another. Since so many people can accept Blast, I think even if some Layer 2 technologies are insufficient , and we cannot deny it arbitrarily. In the end, it still depends on what kind of value these projects themselves can bring to the market and even the entire industry.

Kevin He: Thanks to the host for the question, Faust has expressed it more clearly. Let me add some personal opinions: the current Bitcoin ecosystem can be described as a hundred flowers blooming. As for Bitcoin Layer 2, it is a stage where hundreds of rivals compete for success.

In the context of Bitcoin's continued halving, the Bitcoin ecosystem came into being. Various asset protocols based on Bitcoin have been launched one after another, breaking the inherent concept that Bitcoin cannot easily issue assets, and assets have exploded. The prosperity of assets will inevitably generate application demands, and the special technical conditions of Bitcoin (expensive and slow) urgently require BTC Layer2 to undertake the application demands of these assets.

From the market point of view, there are already a number of projects that are running relatively fast and have attracted the attention of the Eastern and Western communities. At the same time, technically speaking, Bitcoin’s Layer 2 definition, or security standards, are missing, and more aspiring people are needed to promote the formation of consensus.

Two

2. Wuyue: Thanks to the two teachers for their wonderful sharing. What do you think of the “Bitcoin Magazine’s three chapters on Bitcoin Layer 2” that has caused widespread discussion recently? Do you think the standards proposed by Bitcoin Magazine are reasonable? Many people in the Western community seem to be critical of this matter at the moment.

Faust:In fact, the three major standards proposed byBitcoin Magazine are not very precise, and some key points are based on awareness. From a morphological point of view, rather than from a technical point of view, there is no community consensus and it is difficult to use it as an objective condition for judging Layer 2.

I personally think that they originally wanted to put forward some strict standards, but found that different Bitcoin Layer 2s are very different, and there is no way to quickly summarize them. They want to implement a universal evaluation framework, but they want to implement a set of customized standards at this point in time, so they simply "make three chapters" (Bitcoin Magazine stated at the beginning of the article that its purpose of implementing standards is to resist some chaos in the Bitcoin ecosystem. elephant). But this simple and crude method may not be able to objectively measure Bitcoin Layer 2.

In this regard, the Ethereum Foundation may be more rigorous. They operate from a technical perspective and target different technical solutions. To distinguish, specific technical solutions such as state channels, Plasma, and Rollup are classified as Layer 2. Many people in the Ethereum community also classify Validium and Optimium other than Rollup into the Layer 2 category.

This method of classifying from a technical perspective should be clearer and the ideas clearer. For example, state channels and Rollup have very different working mechanisms, and many features are not interoperable. The Ethereum community first classified both into the Layer 2 category, and then proposed a series of evaluation criteria for the Rollup subcategory. . This approach is more mature.

But ifyou insist on using a macro and universal indicator to evaluate the entire Layer 2 track like Bitcoin Magazine does, you will find that It is difficult to generalize to a set of fine-grained universal methods. So if it were me, I would first declare:

Side chain, sovereign rollup, independent public chain (ps: independent public chain and side chain There are differences), ZK Rollup and OP Rollup, which technology types are considered Layer 2, and then implemented into different subdivision concept evaluations. Of course, it is not impossible to directly provide a set of not fine-grained and relatively vague evaluation solutions for Bitcoin Layer 2. For example, I would be more inclined to consider censorship resistance, DA implementation methods, and status. Evaluate on points where there is basically consensus in the industry, such as the conversion verification method, that is, first look at everything from the perspective of security and function expansion, because the evaluation methods involved have long been mature and there is basically a consensus in the industry.

The views put forward by Bitcoin Magazine have not been unanimously recognized by the industry and are mixed with strong ideological orientation, especially It’s the first one: Layer 2 must use Bitcoin as the native token. Even if you issue your own token, it must be backed by bitcoin.

This standard is one that even the Ethereum Foundation, which regards maintaining the price of ETH as one of its purposes and has a tendency toward centralization, dare not express it so openly. In this regard, Bitcoin Magazine may not want to see too many teams that are eager for quick success and issuance of coins in a hurry, so they raised this point, but in fact, even if Layer 2 issues coins, it will not affect what its Native Token is. That phrase is "backed by bitcoin" It’s even more confusing.

At this point, my personal attitude is very clear: The standards should be proposed from a technical perspective as much as possible, with less pure ideology. L2BEAT in the Ethereum community has done a better job in this regard. They make scientific evaluations from technical aspects such as censorship resistance, DA reliability, verification methods of state transition results, and control rights of Rollup contracts. This set of standards only requires With slight modifications, it can be applied to many modular blockchains in the Celestia ecosystem. Of course, the security of Bitcoin Layer 2 can also be evaluated in general.

But if you define Layer 2 from an ideological perspective like Bitcoin Magazine does, it would be too subjective. This is like evaluating which political system is better between the United States and the Soviet Union. In the end, it can easily turn into accusations between dissidents. But it's much easier to judge everything from a technical perspective.

I think we should work in directions that are less controversial and easier to gain consensus, such as evaluating the security risks and functions of Layer 2 Completeness, judging the hidden dangers of different asset protocols, starting from these perspectives, we need to be more objective and rigorous. Trying to define it from an ideological level is not what Bitcoin Magazine or any other person or organization should do (except Satoshi Nakamoto).

But what is interesting is that the CEO of Bitcoin Magazine mentioned that he plans to recruit an employee from L2BEAT to study the Bitcoin Layer 2 evaluation method. It is estimated that they will quote some of L2BEAT’s work results soon.

Kevin He: First of all, I would like to appreciate the courage and responsibility of the editors of Bitcoin Magazine   Proposing and implementing standards in this era of great contention will inevitably lead to criticism, and implementation will also require a lot of effort. However, a healthy community must have someone to do this, just like we tried to promote discussions on classification standards and safety standards in the community a few months ago.

Secondly, Back to the standard itself, in my personal opinion,

1)It is based on the innovations of Ordinals and BitVM (without these two innovations, the Bitcoin ecosystem may still be a stagnant water)

2) Personally, I think it is a relatively broad standard (I have tried very hard to unite as many unitable forces as possible) 

3) Personally, I think there is a lack of discussion of more essential security standards (that is, the underlying principles of why these three standards are needed)

Considering that we have had a lot of thinking and discussion in this area before, which was mainly concentrated in the Chinese-speaking circle, we will promote our draft to a wider audience in the future. We also welcome more (including Bitcoin Magazine) to work together to promote the formation of community consensus on classification and security standards.

Three

3. Fog Moon: The sharing of both teachers is very exciting, so next I want to ask the most critical question: How do you think the objective evaluation criteria for Bitcoin Layer 2 should be defined?

Faust: In fact, I have expressed it before, that isFirst from a technical perspective, from a security and Layer2 perspective Starting from technical perspectives such as functional completeness, starting from subjective ideology less, referring more to points of consensus in the industry, and less inventing new concepts and ideas on your own. Bitcoin Layer 2 is essentially an extension of the modular blockchain, state channels, and derived off-chain asset protocols. As long as it follows the existing research conclusions on these three, it will be fine.

Those elements that have not been included in the Layer 2 evaluation criteria by industry sages must have reasons for not being included. Weshould avoid these minefields. In this area, try to follow the path that has been trodden by predecessors. Don't force yourself to open a new path in the swamp. Doing so will only make you sink deeper in the end.

Kevin He:I think that in order to promote this set of standards, we must adhere to at least two basic points:

1) Respect the tradition of Bitcoin and absorb the latest developments (such as Ordinals/BitVM)

2) Absorb other ecology’s exploration and implementation experience on Layer2 (such as Ethereum Layer2)

Here Based on the two basic points, several universal/objective/security-focused standard definitions were formed. After full discussion, a community consensus was finally formed. All theoretical frameworks must go through several discussions and revisions before they can gradually take shape. The establishment of standards for Bitcoin Layer 2 may still require the joint exploration of many people and organizations. In the end, the market will gradually Select the most reasonable standard that is most acceptable to most professionals and even people with common sense. This process is left to the free choice of the market to know the final answer.