Analysis of Bitcoin Layer 2 Network Solutions: Native Nature, Decentralization, and Implementation Status

Recently, the Bitcoin Layer 2 network (BTC L2) has become the focus of the crypto market, with various projects emerging. This article will analyze the five main BTC L2 solutions in the current market from three perspectives: the native nature of Bitcoin, the degree of Decentralization, and the implementation status.

Why choose these three assessment perspectives?

1. Bitcoin Native Nature: Directly utilizing Bitcoin's mature technology to build L2 can reduce risks and gain easier recognition from the Bitcoin community.

2. Degree of Decentralization: As a core value of blockchain, decentralization is crucial for the survival of BTC L2, especially in terms of BTC management and transactions.

3. Implementation status: Actual application is a direct way to test the feasibility of the solution.

Analysis of Five BTC L2 Solutions

1. Bitcoin Sidechain

Typical representatives: Stack, RSK

1. Bitcoin's native quality: poor, difficult to gain support from the Bitcoin community.
2. Degree of Decentralization: General, asset security relies on multiple signers.
3. Implementation Status: The ecological development has not achieved significant results.

2. UTXO+ Client Verification

Typical representatives: RGB, BitVM

1. Bitcoin's native nature: strong, but may affect feasibility and practicality.
2. Degree of Decentralization: Relies on client validation, not true network consensus.
3. Implementation status: Still in the theoretical stage, facing significant uncertainty.

Three, Taproot Consensus

Typical representative: BEVM

1. Bitcoin Native Nature: Extremely strong, built on Bitcoin core technology.
2. Degree of Decentralization: High, achieved through the Bitcoin light node network for decentralized management.
3. Implementation status: Good, there are already projects in actual operation.

Four, Multi-signature + EVM

Typical representative: Melin Chain

1. Bitcoin Nativism: Almost none, essentially a Bitcoin sidechain.
2. Degree of Decentralization: Low, reliant on multi-signers.
3. Implementation status: Low technical threshold, easy to achieve, but security depends on multi-signature management.

Five, Rollup

Typical representatives: B2, Bison

1. Bitcoin's Native Quality: Poor, derived from Ethereum L2 solutions.
2. Degree of Decentralization: Decentralization of asset management and layer two ledgers remains a challenge.
3. Implementation status: The difficulty of realization is not high, but there are issues such as asset management and ledger trustworthiness.

Summary

The five BTC L2 solutions each have their pros and cons. Bitcoin sidechains struggle to gain mainstream acceptance; multi-signature + EVM is easy to replicate but has low decentralization; UTXO + client validation has strong native characteristics but is difficult to implement; Rollup solutions are easy to spread but need to address fundamental issues; Taproot Consensus performs relatively well in terms of native characteristics, decentralization, and implementation, making it worth paying attention to.

The advantages and disadvantages of different solutions will change with technological development and market demand, and there is still ample room for innovation in the BTC L2 space.