Comparison and Analysis of Bitcoin Layer 2 Network Solutions

Recently, the Bitcoin second-layer network (BTC Layer2) has become a hot topic in the cryptocurrency market, with various projects emerging. This article will analyze and compare the current mainstream five types of BTC L2 solutions from a technical implementation perspective, including Bitcoin sidechains, UTXO + client validation, Taproot consensus, multi-signature + EVM, and Rollup. We will evaluate them from three dimensions: Bitcoin native nature, degree of decentralization, and practical implementation.

The reasons for choosing these three dimensions are as follows:

1. The inherent nature of Bitcoin reflects the degree of adherence to the core technology of Bitcoin, directly impacting whether one can gain recognition from the Bitcoin community.

2. Decentralization is the core value of blockchain and is the most valued characteristic by the Bitcoin community. The level of decentralization of BTC L2 almost determines the project's survival and development.

3. Implementation status is a direct indicator of the feasibility of a solution. Many solutions sound attractive, but actual implementation often faces numerous challenges.

1. Bitcoin Sidechains

A Bitcoin sidechain is an expansion blockchain that operates independently of the Bitcoin mainchain, typically using mechanisms such as multi-signature or hash time lock to manage Bitcoin assets and map BTC tokens on the sidechain.

1. Bitcoin's native nature: poor. Sidechains can exist independently of Bitcoin and are difficult to gain support from the Bitcoin community.

2. Degree of decentralization: General. Asset security mainly relies on multiple signature participants.

3. Degree of implementation: Medium. Although it has developed for many years, progress in ecological construction is limited, mainly constrained by decentralization and asset security issues.

2. UTXO+ Client Verification

This type of solution is based on the Bitcoin UTXO model for off-chain ledger calculation and uses client validation to ensure the authenticity of the ledger. Representative projects include RGB and BitVM.

1. Bitcoin's native nature: very high. Completely designed based on the UTXO model, but it may overemphasize native nature at the expense of practicality.

2. Degree of decentralization: Moderate. Although client-side validation can achieve distributed verification, it is not true decentralization that relies on network consensus.

3. Level of Implementation: Low. It is still in the theoretical or white paper stage, and practical implementation faces huge challenges.

3. Taproot Consensus

The Taproot consensus is built on three main technologies of Bitcoin: Schnorr signatures, MAST contracts, and lightweight node networks. This solution was proposed and implemented by the BEVM team.

1. Bitcoin Native Nature: Extremely High. Completely based on Bitcoin core technology, with no need to introduce additional technologies.

2. Degree of decentralization: High. Decentralized Bitcoin management achieved through a large-scale lightweight node network.

3. Degree of implementation: relatively high. BEVM has been running stably for several months, handling a large number of transactions and has a considerable user base and ecosystem projects.

4. Multi-signature + EVM

This type of solution uses multi-signature to manage Bitcoin assets and generates corresponding tokens on EVM-compatible chains. It is simple to implement but essentially remains a sidechain solution.

1. Bitcoin's native nature: low. The second-layer network can exist completely independently of Bitcoin.

2. Degree of decentralization: Low. Asset security completely relies on designated multi-signers.

3. Degree of implementation: High. Low technical threshold, easy to implement, with a large number of such projects on the market.

5. Rollup

Rollup technology was originally an Ethereum L2 solution, but there are projects attempting to apply it to Bitcoin L2. However, due to Bitcoin's lack of support for smart contract validation, the effectiveness of such solutions on Bitcoin is questionable.

1. Native nature of Bitcoin: Low. Originating from the Ethereum ecosystem, with low correlation to Bitcoin.

2. Degree of decentralization: low to moderate. The decentralization of asset management and second-layer ledger verification has not yet been fully resolved.

3. Degree of implementation: Moderate. The technology is relatively mature, but its applicability in the Bitcoin ecosystem still needs to be tested by the market.

Summary

Various BTC L2 solutions have their own advantages and disadvantages. Bitcoin sidechains are difficult to gain mainstream acceptance; multi-signature + EVM are easy to implement but have low decentralization; UTXO + client verification have strong native properties but are difficult to implement; Rollup solutions draw on Ethereum's experience but face adaptation challenges; Taproot consensus performs relatively well in terms of native properties, decentralization, and implementation, making it a solution worth paying attention to.

In the future, the development of BTC L2 projects will hinge on how to maintain the native characteristics of Bitcoin while achieving high decentralization and good usability. The market will continue to focus on the evolution of various solutions and their practical application effects.