“UTXO Isomorphic Binding Technology” is an innovative development in the BTC ecosystem that I believe is crucial. I have emphasized the importance and innovation of this technology on multiple occasions. However, I have noticed that many people still do not understand the significance of this technology. This lack of understanding is due to both technical knowledge and ideological issues. Therefore, I am writing this article to specifically explain my understanding and judgment of this technology.
1. The Necessity of BTC Expansion
Let’s first consider the question: Why does BTC need to expand? The core issue involved in this question is the necessity of expanding the BTC network. If there is no necessity, then the entire ecosystem is essentially a false proposition.
There are many ways to explain this question, such as:
1) The halving cycle of BTC results in a decrease in miner rewards, requiring more on-chain activities to increase income and maintain network security. More on-chain activities require ecosystem expansion.
2) The TPS (transactions per second) of the BTC network is very low and cannot meet the usage requirements of many scenarios. There is a need for a means of expansion to make the network more powerful.
3) The network fees of BTC are expensive, making it inconvenient for widespread adoption, especially as the price of BTC rises, creating a growing gap between the average person and the original intention.
4) BTC network can provide a very limited number of opcodes, only able to achieve a few defined functions or combination operations. The scripting language is not Turing complete, making it extremely difficult to implement smart contracts. Therefore, there is a need for a method to give BTC these capabilities.
5) BTC data is completely public, although technologies like HD wallets can provide a certain level of privacy, in most cases, transactions can be traced, lacking privacy. Therefore, there is a need for a method to enhance privacy.
6) …
In fact, if we were to write, we would find that there are many reasons. Some of these reasons may not be very sufficient, but they all reflect one problem: the BTC network does need to expand!
2. Common Options for BTC Expansion
Common expansion options select one or several goals and design solutions to achieve these goals. Taking common expansion solutions as examples:
1) The sidechain approach involves creating a separate chain, mostly anchored to BTC through multi-signature, and then designing its own consensus mechanism and adding special settings to achieve specific functions. For example, Liquid has added script opcodes, asset issuance functionality, and the concept of privacy assets.
2) The Lightning Network approach uses logical algorithms to achieve secure and fast off-chain interactions, making large-scale widespread payments possible.
3) The client-side verification approach uses one-time sealing and off-chain techniques to perform computations off-chain while inheriting the security of the main network and the ability to execute smart contracts.
4) The plaintext approach is based on UTXO and enables limited processing to achieve asset issuance functionality and other enhancements as needed.
5) The compatibility with EVM approach mostly starts with a heterogeneous multi-signature bridge and then uses a structure similar to a sidechain to build a chain compatible with EVM. On this chain, mature experiences from the EVM ecosystem are used to develop DApps and other practical applications.
6) The modular approach refers to the development path of the EVM family, where parts that may be used in BTC expansion are modularized, such as the DA layer.
7) The Bitvm approach uses a limited number of opcodes to construct complex functionalities similar to “circuits.”
8) …
Of course, there are other technical routes, and new ideas (mostly micro-innovations) are constantly being introduced. However, when we understand these contexts, we can relatively quickly judge the core meaning of a new approach based on our own value judgments.
There have been many debates on these expansion options. Of course, there will always be debates in the crypto world, such as the debates between “orthodox” and “unorthodox”, “native” and “non-native”, “whether to use BTC as Gas”, “long-termism vs. practicality”, etc. Some of these debates have even evolved into conflicts between communities. From the perspective of a technical researcher, I believe that it is difficult for anyone to predict the future results with 100% certainty. Therefore, it is sufficient to follow one’s own value judgment and choose a recognized technical route.
3. The Emergence of UIB
Among the various routes, the form of cross-chain bridges has been questioned for its “security.” Layer-one asset protocols have been frustrated by the limited development capabilities based on UTXO. Bitvm requires a longer construction cycle, and compatibility with EVM is considered too low by many people in the BTC community.
Is there a way to embody nativeness, ensure security, and have high scalability at the same time?
This is where UIB comes in, which stands for UTXO Isomorphic Binding.
This technology utilizes the homomorphic properties of the UTXO model and, through “one-time sealing,” can map UTXOs from chain A to a Turing complete UTXO chain B.
This technology was proposed by Cipher, the founder of Cell Studio, and has been implemented on CKB.
Let’s take a close look at this concept description:
1) Both parties must be based on UTXO, which is beyond doubt.
2) Chain A is, in principle, non-Turing complete, otherwise, it can expand on its own chain. Of course, even if it is Turing complete, this isomorphic approach can still achieve native asset mapping.
3) Chain B needs to be Turing complete because the mapping process requires the constraints of Chain B to verify the correctness of state calculation and the validity of ownership changes.
4) In principle, asset issuance protocols based on Chain A can adopt isomorphic mapping.
Please carefully read the four points above, and you will find that the description of “the emergence of UIB” is not an exaggeration!
1) In terms of nativeness, it does not use any cross-chain bridge methods and is very native.
2) In terms of interpretation, Chain B provides an open DA layer to provide a foundation for the construction of other modules.
3) In terms of security, it is possible to achieve the same level of security as Chain A (although I am not entirely sure about this, despite relevant theoretical explanations).
4) In terms of scalability, it fully inherits the scalability performance of Chain B.
In other words, with UIB, you can find an excellent balance between “nativeness,” “security,” and “scalability.”
Of course, its limitation is that you need to have such a Chain B and have various components of code to implement the protocol.
4. The Narrative Space of UIB
UIB has great potential in the BTC ecosystem.
It can turn UTXO-based public chains with Chain B characteristics into BTC’s Layer 2, mapping assets in a native way and enabling various expansion developments on Chain B.
The specific outline is as follows:
1) Taking the recently popular RGB++ as an example, it is a new layer-one asset protocol that can be mapped to CKB through UIB. At the same time, layer-two assets can be isomorphically transformed into layer-one assets through LEAP, enhancing nativeness.
2) Furthermore, other layer-one asset protocols on the BTC mainnet can also be isomorphically mapped to the CKB network through UIB. This will greatly activate the funds accumulated in various layer-one asset protocols and provide more use cases and gameplay.
UIB can connect other UTXO chains.
Furthermore, are there other networks that can replace the CKB network? Of course, there are. UIB can exist independently of CKB as an intermediate layer protocol. We can isomorphically map various asset protocols mentioned above to other Turing complete UTXO chains, and each chain can improve and expand the UIB technology protocol.
Continuing further, it’s not just the BTC network that has a layer-one asset. Many other UTXO chains also have layer-one asset protocols, and the funds or communities accumulated on them may not be as large as those of the BTC network, but overall, they are still a significant force. However, due to the limitations of early architectural design, most of these networks do not have Turing complete capabilities. They will also become use cases for the application of UIB technology. Through this approach, UIB technology achieves a native connection between assets on various chains in the UTXO world.
So, what are the OTHER TURING-COMPLETE UTXONETWORKs mentioned here?
1) Obviously, UTXO STACK, which recently announced its financing, is one of them. With UTXO STACK, it is possible to deploy chains based on CKB architecture in one click, and these chains can naturally utilize the UIB technology, pushing the CKB network to a position similar to COSMOSHUB (I’m not sure if my statement is appropriate).
2) There will be more and more Turing complete UTXO networks launched. These networks usually have their unique features to achieve extreme specialization in certain dimensions to adapt to their unique positioning attributes.
3) Drawing on this idea, there will also be UTXO STACKs based on other networks, serving the ecosystems of other networks and enhancing the status of the main network.
This community will become larger and larger, allowing UIB technology to be widely adopted.
So, have you understood this context?
5. So, what is UIB?
So, now let’s look at UIB again. What do you think it is?
It is an intermediate layer that can isomorphically map layer-one assets in various UTXO worlds to layer two, entering the era of smart contracts!
It is a universal technology that can be used in many places in the UTXO world, connecting various separate small worlds!
It is an important innovation in the development of the BTC ecosystem!
It is the new Holy Grail of the UTXO world!
