|
|
At first, when I heard that @NervosNetwork was going all-in on BTC layer2, I wasn't surprised. Because the CKB public chain technology is close to BTC yet ahead of BTC, it can both accommodate native UTXO features and implement more advanced programmable feature extensions. If surpassing BTC in the narrative seems almost impossible for the CKB public chain, then its development as a BTC layer2 will surely be an unbeatable presence. Why? Let's talk about my perspective on CKB next.
The current BTC layer2 market is limited by the shortcomings of BTC's mainnet in terms of validation capabilities, leading to a variety of solutions. Yes, precisely because the BTC mainnet's scripting language is inherently simple, and its computational and validation capabilities are almost close to zero, it has given the market ample room and opportunity to flourish. Currently, apart from limited transaction verification and multi-signature within the UTXO unlocking conditions, BTC mainnet cannot directly implement any complex transaction logic requiring verification of data, state changes, etc. Instead, it has to act as an asset settlement layer and extend a powerful public chain to build local consensus and computational verification capabilities to achieve scalability. As a result, there is no unified standard for the landing of BTC layer2, no concept of "orthodoxy," and it is even difficult to draw clear distinctions. The only way to distinguish between narrow and broad definitions is based on the perception of the community: narrowly speaking, only extension solutions like Lightning Network state channels and RGB's single-seal schemes ensure true BTC orthodoxy as layer2 because they fully utilize and leverage BTC's limited script verification capabilities without needing or relying on minimal off-chain local consensus. Broadly speaking, as long as the local consensus of the extension chain is recognized and there is a cross-chain bridge solution to ensure the secure migration of assets, theoretically, Ethereum EVM chains, Solana high-concurrency performance chains, and so on can all act as BTC layer2. Clearly, the current BTC layer2 market is significantly polarized, either extremely narrow, with slow development like Lightning Network and RGB, or extremely broad, where any performance chain that can interact securely with BTC mainnet assets is considered BTC layer2. So, is there no compromise solution? Yes, the answer is: the @NervosNetwork, which utilizes a UTXO-based model and has adapted and upgraded its performance. Specifically:
1) The CKB Network and BTC are completely akin in terms of "UTXO model" and "mining consensus mechanism." Different from mainstream public chains like Ethereum, which have an account balance model, UTXO has certain unique advantages, demonstrating advanced characteristics in transaction privacy, flexible transaction construction, and parallel processing to prevent double-spending. It can be considered one of Satoshi Nakamoto's greatest inventions. This also explains why after Ethereum, projects like Sui and Aptos adopted similar UTXO models. We can say that while Bitcoin's capacity and block generation speed are limited by the times, the UTXO model is forward-thinking. CKB adopts the UTXO model and upgrades it to the Cell model. This model not only retains the transactional purity of the Bitcoin UTXO model but also provides the data state of Ethereum's account model. In simple terms: while the Bitcoin UTXO model involves the continuous creation and destruction of coins, Cell removes the destruction process, aiming to verify and preserve states in the long term. Each Cell contains two fields: Capacity, measured in bytes, equivalent to the balance of UTXO; Data, which stores arbitrary data such as historical transaction states. This allows Cell collections to not only accurately represent balances and process asset transfers but also contain a series of complex smart contract states. Overall, the Cell model is a leading transaction model with greater persistence, better flexibility, and an expanded range of applicable scenarios than the UTXO model. It is also the key to CKB's ability to inherit BTC mainnet security while simultaneously "speeding up" extensions like the Lightning Network and RGB, which are slow in BTC's expansion direction.
2) Taking the recent launch of RGB++ by CKB as an example, under normal circumstances, the maturity of the RGB solution extending into the BTC ecosystem is impeded not by the one-time sealing process on the BTC mainnet, but rather by the communication, coordination, and state maintenance among off-chain client verification nodes, especially in a decentralized node environment. In other words, while the RGB theory seems straightforward, its practical implementation is limited by underlying infrastructural constraints, resulting in numerous obstacles.
CKB sees this clearly and simply involves all these off-chain client verification nodes in the on-chain public verification process of CKB. This directly accelerates the path of UTXO off-chain client verification practices that RGB wants to achieve. After all, achieving consensus among complex P2P node networks in off-chain client environments is difficult, full of complexity and challenges. For example: off-chain communication may face issues such as data synchronization delays or inconsistencies, as well as some fraud and attack challenges. It would be much simpler to replicate this process on-chain.
3) While RGB++ has been discussed more recently, let me add another feature proposed by CKB, the Open Transaction data format, to demonstrate the forward-thinking nature of this blockchain. In simple terms: Open Transaction allows multiple participants to construct and aggregate different transactions at different times, incorporating three major features: partial construction, permission to modify, and incremental construction and aggregation. For example: Alice creates an Open Transaction, stating her desire to exchange a certain amount of token A with Bob for token B. After the transaction is initiated, it remains in an editable state. If Bob agrees to the transaction conditions upon receipt, he can add his token B and supplement the transaction conditions. At first glance, it may seem abstract. For example, in a cross-chain scenario, Alice and Bob can autonomously complete asset transactions on different heterogeneous chains, greatly enhancing the interoperability of the CKB chain with other chains. In complex DeFi trading scenarios, participants in DeFi may need to dynamically adjust based on market changes. Through Open Transaction, contract participants can flexibly adjust transaction conditions during contract execution, greatly enriching the handling capability of complex transactions. |
|
Post time 26-2-2024 13:04:57