比特幣縮放的當前景觀

在開發Botanix的過程中，我們一直在問自己一個問題：在比特幣頂部建立的系統是否真的稱為Sidechain或第2層（L2）？

Author: Botanix Labs

作者：Botanix Labs

Original link: https://botanixlabs.xyz/en/blog/the-current-occurrence-landscape-of-bitcoin-scaling

原始鏈接：https：//botanixlabs.xyz/en/blog/the-current-occurrence-currence-landscape-of-bitcoin-scaling

In the process of developing Botanix, we kept asking ourselves a question: Can a system built on top of Bitcoin really be called a sidechain or layer 2 (L2)? This is a complex question because from a technical point of view, based on current capabilities, Bitcoin cannot act as a true L1 to host L2 like other ecosystems. Typically, L2 relies on smart contracts deployed at the bottom layer to verify proofs. For example, in the Ethereum ecosystem, L2 verification is performed by a deterministic function in a smart contract, which is executed by all Ethereum nodes when processing transactions.

在開發Botanix的過程中，我們一直在問自己一個問題：在比特幣頂部建立的系統是否真的稱為Sidechain或第2層（L2）？這是一個複雜的問題，因為從技術的角度來看，基於當前功能，比特幣不能像其他生態系統一樣充當真正的L1。通常，L2依靠在底層部署的智能合約來驗證證明。例如，在以太坊生態系統中，L2驗證是由智能合約中的確定性函數執行的，在處理交易時，所有以太坊節點都執行。

The situation with Bitcoin is both simpler and more complex. Discussions about L2 on Bitcoin are often confusing. Unlike Ethereum, which natively supports Turing completeness and expressiveness, Bitcoin's current capabilities are extremely limited, and there are subtle differences in what is technically possible and what is not. Because of this, systems built on Bitcoin do not actually have strict L2 or sidechain capabilities. So why do we prefer to call them "Bitcoin Chains" instead of extensions or L2? The reason is that these chains built on Bitcoin usually have independent operating logic and build their own ecosystems around it.

比特幣的情況既簡單又復雜。關於比特幣的L2的討論通常令人困惑。與以太坊（以太坊）本地支持Turing完整性和表現力不同，比特幣的當前功能極為有限，並且在技術上可能和沒有的問題上存在細微的差異。因此，基於比特幣的系統實際上沒有嚴格的L2或Sidechain功能。那麼，為什麼我們寧願稱它們為“比特幣鏈”，而不是擴展或L2呢？原因是這些基於比特幣的連鎖店通常具有獨立的操作邏輯，並圍繞其建立自己的生態系統。

Bitcoin does not support smart contracts like Ethereum does. Any complex logic must be implemented through structures built on top of it. Therefore, Bitcoin itself cannot directly verify proofs or maintain the state of smart contracts. Most types of proofs are too large to be put on the chain - Bitcoin transactions are only allowed to carry 80 bytes of arbitrary data. Solutions like Starkware's m31 are highly specialized and closed. Even if you manage to publish some kind of proof or state update to Bitcoin, the process is more like optimistic rollups. But waiting a whole week for fraud proofs to be resolved is neither realistic nor acceptable, and relying on third-party bridges introduces delays and trust assumptions, both of which are not ideal in the Bitcoin native environment.

比特幣不像以太坊那樣支持智能合約。任何復雜的邏輯都必須通過在其頂部構建的結構來實現。因此，比特幣本身無法直接驗證證據或維護智能合約的狀態。大多數類型的證明太大而無法放在鏈條上 - 僅允許比特幣交易攜帶80個任意數據。諸如Starkware的M31之類的解決方案是高度專業化和關閉的。即使您設法將某種證明或狀態更新發布給比特幣，該過程也更像是樂觀的匯總。但是，等待整整一周的欺詐證據既不是現實也不可以接受，並且依靠第三方橋樑引入了延遲和信任假設，這兩者在比特幣本地環境中都不是理想的。

Interactions with Bitcoin are limited to unspent transaction outputs (UTXO) with ScriptPubKey and BTC transfer transactions. The OP_RETURN instruction can only carry 80 bytes of data and cannot support interactions with complex data structures at all. Because of these limitations, it is difficult for Bitcoin to have complete L1 support for L2 functionality unless there are major changes to the protocol (such as a hard fork). Such modifications not only require extremely high community consensus, but may also undermine the uniqueness and value positioning of Bitcoin as an asset. For example, proposals to introduce new instructions such as OP_CAT (such as CatVM) have not yet reached a broad consensus. Even if there is a consensus, it often takes several years for a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) to be proposed and activated.

與比特幣的相互作用僅限於ScriptPubkey和BTC轉移交易的未解決事務輸出（UTXO）。 OP_RETURN指令只能攜帶80個字節的數據，並且根本不能支持與復雜數據結構的交互。由於這些局限性，除非協議發生重大更改（例如硬叉），否則比特幣很難對L2功能具有完全的L1支持。這種修改不僅需要極高的社區共識，而且還可能破壞比特幣作為資產的獨特性和價值定位。例如，介紹諸如OP_CAT（例如CATVM）之類的新指令的建議尚未達成廣泛的共識。即使達成共識，提出和激活的BIP（比特幣改進建議）通常需要幾年的時間。

Because of this, Botanix aims to build on “current Bitcoin” rather than trying to force it to L1 or push radical protocol changes. This path is possible because we use Spiderchain technology and a network of coordinators. So, how far has the ecosystem being built on top of Bitcoin developed?

因此，Botanix的目的是建立在“當前的比特幣”上，而不是試圖將其強加於L1或推動激進協議更改。這條路徑是可能的，因為我們使用蜘蛛網技術和協調員網絡。那麼，在比特幣之上建立了多遠的生態系統？

Background: The emerging landscape of Bitcoin Chain (L2)

背景：比特幣鏈（L2）的新興景觀

Despite the above limitations, most projects still prefer to call themselves "L2" and use this term as a general label. One of the earliest projects to claim to be Bitcoin L2 is Stacks. Although Stacks anchors data to Bitcoin and interacts with BTC, it is essentially an independent blockchain with its own consensus mechanism. Another example is BounceBit, which is classified as Bitcoin L2 because it uses BTC in its consensus mechanism (along with the native token). But this is actually not accurate. From an architectural point of view, it is closer to a restaking model, running on its own chain, and Bitcoin's role is limited to indirect participation.

儘管有上述局限性，但大多數項目仍然更喜歡將自己稱為“ L2”，並將此術語用作一般標籤。聲稱是比特幣L2的最早項目之一是堆棧。儘管堆棧將數據錨定為比特幣並與BTC相互作用，但它本質上是具有其自身共識機制的獨立區塊鏈。另一個示例是BounceBit，該示例被歸類為比特幣L2，因為它在其共識機理中使用BTC（與天然令牌一起使用）。但這實際上不准確。從建築的角度來看，它更接近重新製作的模型，在自己的鏈條上運行，比特幣的角色僅限於間接參與。

However, the vision of making Bitcoin "alive" - making it not just a value storage tool, but an asset that can "do more" - has long attracted the attention of many developers. With the new super cycle starting in 2022, this vision has become increasingly important. While Ethereum has risen about 4 times from bottom to top in this cycle, Bitcoin has risen 6 times despite being slower and more "clunky". This dynamic is very interesting, isn't it? It further strengthens Bitcoin's position as the dominant asset in the Web3 world.

但是，使比特幣“ Alive”的願景不僅使其成為價值存儲工具，而且可以“做更多”的資產 - 長期以來吸引了許多開發人員的注意。隨著新的超級週期從2022年開始，這種願景變得越來越重要。儘管以太坊在這個週期中從底部到頂部升高了大約4倍，但儘管比特幣較慢，更笨拙，但比特幣卻增加了6次。這種動態非常有趣，不是嗎？它進一步增強了比特幣在Web3世界中的主要資產地位。

From the perspective of value utilization indicators such as TVL (total value locked) - which indirectly reflects the degree of use of the underlying assets in the ecosystem - Bitcoin's comparison with other networks is even more significant. TVL represents the value carrying capacity of an ecosystem, including both the applications built on its upper layer and the utilization of the underlying assets in the L2 running on the base chain.

從價值利用率指標（例如TVL（總價值鎖定））的角度來看，這間接反映了生態系統中基礎資產的使用程度 - 比特幣與其他網絡的比較更加重要。 TVL代表生態系統的價值承載能力，包括在其上層建立的應用以及在基本鏈上運行的L2中基礎資產的利用。

Currently, Bitcoin’s TVL in decentralized applications is only $5.5 billion, while its FDV (fully

目前，分散應用程序中比特幣的TVL僅為55億美元，而其FDV（完全