“UTXO Isomorphic Binding Technology” is an innovation that I believe is very important in the development of the BTC ecosystem. I have emphasized the importance and innovativeness of this technology multiple times. However, I have found that many people still do not understand the significance of this technology. There are issues with technical knowledge and ideological understanding. Therefore, I am writing this article to specifically explain my understanding and judgment of this technology.
I. The Necessity of BTC Expansion
Let’s first consider the question: Why does BTC need to expand?
This question involves the core issue of the necessity of BTC network expansion. If it is not necessary, then the entire ecosystem is actually a false proposition.
We can explain this question from many aspects, such as:
1) The halving cycle of BTC, the decrease in miner rewards, and the need for more on-chain activities to increase income and maintain network security. More on-chain activities require ecosystem expansion to stimulate.
2) The TPS (transactions per second) of the BTC network is very low and cannot meet the usage requirements of many scenarios. There needs to be a way to expand the network and make it more powerful.
3) The network fees of BTC are expensive, which is inconvenient for large-scale popularization, especially as the price of BTC continues to rise, the distance between ordinary people and BTC is getting farther away, deviating from the original intention.
4) The BTC network can provide very limited operation codes, only able to achieve very few function definitions or combined operations. The script language is non-Turing complete, making it extremely difficult to implement smart contracts. Therefore, a method is needed to give it these capabilities.
5) BTC’s data is completely public. Although technologies like HD Wallet can provide a certain level of privacy, in most cases, it is traceable and lacks privacy. Therefore, a method is needed to enhance its privacy.
6) …
In fact, if we were to write, we would find that there are many reasons. Some of these reasons may not be so sufficient, but they all reflect one problem: The BTC network does need to expand!
II. Common Options for BTC Expansion
Common expansion options choose one or several of them as targets and design solutions to achieve these goals. Taking common expansion plans as examples:
1) The idea of sidechains is to create their own chains, mostly by anchoring BTC through multi-sig, and then have their own consensus mechanism on their own chain, adding some special settings to achieve corresponding functions. For example, Liquid has added script operation codes, asset issuance functions, and the concept of privacy assets.
2) The Lightning Network uses logical algorithms to achieve off-chain secure and fast interaction, making large-scale popular payments possible.
3) Client-side verification uses one-time sealing technology and off-chain technology to perform calculations off-chain, thus having both the security inheritance of the main network and the ability of smart contracts.
4) Inscription-based approaches involve limited processing based on UTXO to achieve asset issuance functions and other enhanced features as needed.
5) Compatibility with EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) and others mostly start with an alienated multi-sig bridge, and then use a structure similar to sidechains to build a chain compatible with EVM. On this chain, experiences from EVM are used to implement landing applications such as Dapps.
6) The modular approach refers to the development path of the EVM series, modularizing the parts that may be used in BTC expansion, such as the DA (Distributed Application) layer.
7) The Bitvm approach uses a limited set of operation codes to build complex functions using a “circuit” approach.
8) …
Of course, there are other technical routes, and new ideas (mostly micro-innovations) are constantly emerging. But generally, when we understand these contexts, we can relatively quickly judge the core connotation of a new idea.
There have been many debates on these expansions. Of course, there will always be debates in the crypto world, such as the debate between “orthodox and non-orthodox,” “native and non-native,” “whether BTC should be used as Gas,” “long-term and practical,” and so on. Some have even evolved into conflicts between communities. From the perspective of a technical researcher, I believe that “there is no need to worry too much.” It is difficult for anyone to foresee the future results 100%, so it is sufficient to follow one’s own value judgment to choose the recognized technical route.
III. The Emergence of UIB
Among many routes, the form of cross-chain bridges has been questioned for its “security.” Layer-one asset protocols are frustrated due to their limited development capabilities based on UTXO. Bitvm requires a long construction period. Compatibility with EVM is considered to be of poor orthodoxy by many people in the BTC community.
Is there a way to embody nativeness, ensure security, and have high scalability?
This is UIB, the full name being UTXO Isomorphic Binding. This technology utilizes the homomorphic properties of the UTXO model and can map UTXOs from one chain A to another Turing complete UTXO chain B through “one-time sealing.”
This technology was proposed by Cipher, the founder of Cell Studio, and has been implemented on CKB.
Let’s take a closer look at this concept description:
1) First, both parties must be based on UTXO, this is beyond doubt.
2) Chain A is, in principle, possibly non-Turing complete, otherwise, it can expand on its own chain. Of course, even if it is Turing complete, this isomorphic method 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 use isomorphic mapping.
Please carefully read the above four points, and you will find that the description of “the emergence of UIB” is not an exaggeration!
1) In terms of nativeness, it does not have any cross-chain bridge methods, very native.
2) In terms of analysis, 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 particularly certain about this, although there are related theoretical explanations).
4) In terms of scalability, it fully inherits the scalability performance of Chain B.
In other words, UIB allows you to find an excellent balance point in terms of “nativeness,” “security,” and “scalability.”
Of course, its limitations are: You need to have such Chain B and have various component codes required to implement the protocol.
IV. The Narrative Space of UIB
UIB has great potential in the BTC ecosystem.
It can make public chains with Chain B characteristics become the L2 (Layer 2) of BTC, and assets can be mapped in a native way and undergo various expansion and development on Chain B.
The specific context 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 using UIB. At the same time, layer-two assets can also be isomorphically transformed into layer-one assets through LEAP, enhancing orthodoxy.
2) Furthermore, other layer-one asset protocols on the BTC mainnet can also be isomorphically mapped to the CKB network using UIB. This will greatly activate the funds accumulated in various layer-one asset protocols, giving them more use cases and gameplay.
UIB can connect other UTXO chains.
Furthermore, can other networks replace the CKB network? Of course, they can. UIB can exist independently as an intermediate layer protocol apart from CKB. We can isomorphically map the various asset protocols mentioned above to other Turing complete UTXO chains, and each chain can improve and expand the UIB technology protocol.
Furthermore, it’s not just the BTC network that has layer-one assets. Many other UTXO chains also have layer-one asset protocols. Although the funds or communities accumulated on them are not as large as the BTC network, overall, they are still a huge force. However, due to the limitations of the early architecture design, most of these networks do not have Turing complete capabilities. They will also become scenarios and use cases for UIB technology applications. In this way, UIB technology achieves the native connection between assets on various chains in the UTXO world.
So, what are the “OTHER TURING-COMPLETE UTXONETWORK” 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 the CKB architecture with one click. These chains can naturally utilize UIB technology and, through sharing the security of the CKB network, elevate the CKB network to a position like COSMOSHUB (I am 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 characteristics to achieve extreme feature specialization in certain dimensions to adapt to their unique positioning attributes.
3) Drawing on this idea, there will also be UTXOSTACKs based on other networks. They serve the ecosystem of other networks and enhance the status of the main network.
This community will become larger and larger, which will also enable the widespread adoption of UIB technology.
So, have you seen this context clearly?
V. 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 separated small worlds!
It is an important innovation in the development of the BTC ecosystem.
It is the new Holy Grail of the UTXO world.
Original article link
