Are there other possible L2 solutions for Bitcoin?

[thecodebear]

We all know about the Lightning Network. And while it is great for handling enormous loads of transactions nearly instantly and at very low cost, it also has some tradeoffs like you can't take receive more Bitcoin than you've sent at any given state of your node, liquidity could sometimes be a problem at least until LN expands more, money can only be sent if the receiver's node is online, and the whole idea of needing watchtowers and needing to keep the current state of your channels so that your channel partners can't act in bad faith and try to steal from you.


LN is great but its not a perfect solution and in an ideal world for Bitcoin I figure there would be more L2 options for Bitcoin with different or maybe even fewer tradeoffs.


So I'm wondering are there any other L2 solutions for Bitcoin that are being worked on or have been proposed? I read in the Fall someone talking about rollups I think on Bitcoin, though I'm not clear about what rollups actually are, I think I just know of them because I've heard about them as L2 used on Ethereum. Lightning is the only L2 blockchain solution that I actually know how it works so I don't know what other sorts of L2 solutions have been invented and which ones could work on Bitcoin and which ones are possibly being worked on for Bitcoin.

You all know of anything besides Lightning?

[1714506138]

1714506138

[Oshosondy]

None than lightning network which is still enough to use with little amount of bitcoin. Ordinal transactions make the mempool to be a bit congested but not so congested yet, the onchain and lightning network is still sufficient enough as of now.

[DaveF]

The 2 that come to mind are:

https://blockstream.com/liquid/
https://www.omnilayer.org/

I know there are a few others but I can't think of them at the moment.

I guess the issue is that there has never been a concerted organized effort that I have seen to make a lot of L2 things on BTC.
Or, if it's out there not a lot of people discuss it.

-Dave

[BitMaxz]

The lightning network still has some bugs and it is still vulnerable to attacks like Sybil and Routing attacks it is still not the best 2nd layer solution for Bitcoin there are still many options like others mentioned above.

Adding Ethereum Plasma from the list above if you want to know more about this read this "What is Ethereum Plasma"

[thecodebear]

The 2 that come to mind are:

https://blockstream.com/liquid/
https://www.omnilayer.org/

I know there are a few others but I can't think of them at the moment.

I guess the issue is that there has never been a concerted organized effort that I have seen to make a lot of L2 things on BTC.
Or, if it's out there not a lot of people discuss it.

-Dave

I'm not really aware of how those work but I've heard of them, aren't they kind of centralized solutions? Like they are created and owned and perhaps even operated by a company, rather than how Lightning is just a protocol just like Bitcoin.

[DaveF]

The 2 that come to mind are:

https://blockstream.com/liquid/
https://www.omnilayer.org/

I know there are a few others but I can't think of them at the moment.

I guess the issue is that there has never been a concerted organized effort that I have seen to make a lot of L2 things on BTC.
Or, if it's out there not a lot of people discuss it.

-Dave

I'm not really aware of how those work but I've heard of them, aren't they kind of centralized solutions? Like they are created and owned and perhaps even operated by a company, rather than how Lightning is just a protocol just like Bitcoin.

Depending on how you look at it liquid is a bit centralized but it's still open.
Omni is 100% open (and open source) to do with what you want.

Also, forgot about Bisq it's also a L2 chain.

For now, I think lightning for better or worse is going to stay in the lead for a L2 solution.

Part of the issue IMO is that people look at ETH and say 'meh, good enough to do what I want' and don't put the development time into developing L2 for BTC

-Dave

[thecodebear]

The 2 that come to mind are:

https://blockstream.com/liquid/
https://www.omnilayer.org/

I know there are a few others but I can't think of them at the moment.

I guess the issue is that there has never been a concerted organized effort that I have seen to make a lot of L2 things on BTC.
Or, if it's out there not a lot of people discuss it.

-Dave

I'm not really aware of how those work but I've heard of them, aren't they kind of centralized solutions? Like they are created and owned and perhaps even operated by a company, rather than how Lightning is just a protocol just like Bitcoin.

Depending on how you look at it liquid is a bit centralized but it's still open.
Omni is 100% open (and open source) to do with what you want.

Also, forgot about Bisq it's also a L2 chain.

For now, I think lightning for better or worse is going to stay in the lead for a L2 solution.

Part of the issue IMO is that people look at ETH and say 'meh, good enough to do what I want' and don't put the development time into developing L2 for BTC

-Dave

Yeah I mean on ETH, devs can go create some altcoin and try to get rich, or join a company doing that. Bitcoin is more of a public good for humanity than a money grab for companies, so absolutely devs tend to gravitate toward smart contracts and apps/tokens than work on serious Bitcoin projects that could improve money for humanity. This does indeed leave Bitcoin with fewer developers working on important things, and lots of developers looking to make the millionth crypto app lol.

It would be nice to see a bit more active work done on the Bitcoin ecosystem considering how important it is, rather than just another slew of altcoins and smart contracts and crypto apps that no one is going to care about in a month or a year or next market cycle.

I'd love to see competing L2's with different tradeoffs and positives being built for Bitcoin the way they are being built for Ethereum, even if its not really needed for a number of years until we start seeing lots of payments being done in Bitcoin, cuz by then we are gonna want these L2's to be mature and battle tested and widely supported.

[franky1]

liquid and lightning are products of blockstream (brink/chain code lab are just daughter companies of blockstream)
the main core devs have a roadmap designed by the blockstream devs
the same devs are also the main moderators of all development discussions
heck they even are the main merge privilege devs of cores github and also the github supervises that delete and ban any Nacks and critique/scrutiny that opposes the core roadmap

the real reason devs move to other networks like ethereum is because core has become a central point of failure. they have become too much in the style of god-mode of the bitcoin ecosystem
is there any surprise the same period sipa removes himself from blockstream he loses his maintainer status
is there any surprise the same period glowzo gets hired by the same group(brink) she gets given merge/maintainer privileges

any surprise achowe has moderator status of multiple dev discussion points, and is recently been trying to enclose github moderation with the small amount of leaders as controllers. and has been self pushing his own merges
(basically a HUGE lack of independent review)

yep when less than 8 devs are circle jerking each other and deleting, removing and banning anyone that opposes them.. shows core have gone far too central.. even their last lead maintainer has been saying so

as for their roadmap of delaying onchain scaling with the "be patient while we try lightning"
its been stall tactics waiting now for 6+ years

lightning has flaws even the lightning devs cant solve. but the sponsored/paid dev deals are to not work onchain to scale onchain and instead create subnetworks so middlemen can profit from users payments with a subteam paid by the same groups sponsors

lightning is not designed for easy user access, its for services access to gain/recruit/offramp people away from bitcoin and profit from them

lightning is just messing around with unconfirmed payments. not settled


..
there will be future subnetworks that are not designed like lightning that will populate and work as prescribed. but everyone is too much stuck in a "wait and see" and fears breaking away from the roadmap sponsors until their sponsored contract term is over

[thecodebear]

liquid and lightning are products of blockstream (brink/chain code lab are just daughter companies of blockstream)
the main core devs have a roadmap designed by the blockstream devs
the same devs are also the main moderators of all development discussions
heck they even are the main merge privilege devs of cores github and also the github supervises that delete and ban any Nacks and critique/scrutiny that opposes the core roadmap

the real reason devs move to other networks like ethereum is because core has become a central point of failure. they have become too much in the style of god-mode of the bitcoin ecosystem

lol

That logic makes no sense. Ethereum and all altcoins are entirely run by founders and companies that make all decisions for the network and impose whatever hard forks they want while users/operators simply have to go along with them because the founders/companies have 100% control. With bitcoin the community ultimately decides if something goes ahead or not. If devs were concerned about central points of authority they would be running fast from Ethereum to Bitcoin.

Devs go to Ethereum because you can create tokens and apps and try to get rich quick, while on Bitcoin there are no tokens and you can't just create a smart contract app to try to get rich from, you have to either do the hard work of working on the Bitcoin protocol or the hard work of building an actual business in the Bitcoin ecosystem, not just release an altcoin and try to get it pumped.


I don't know why you would try to claim it is Bitcoin that is centralized and Ethereum (controlled entirely by Vitalik) that is not centralized lol. That's the most bizarre backwards lie ever. Like, no one would take you seriously when you say stuff like that. It seems like you prefer the altcoin model of hardfork constantly, no immutability, and centralized control over the network by a founder/company, but you just tell yourself that all that is somehow more decentralized rather than more centralized. If you want an attempt at Bitcoin that is just a centralized altcoin controlled by a single person or a small group then you've got the failed altcoins BCH and BSV and you can join their communities. You don't need to stick it out with decentralized immutable secure global digital hard money if you just want a centralized token that changes constantly, seems like joining a centralized token community would make you happier than sticking it out with the future of money.

[PrivacyG]

Also, forgot about Bisq it's also a L2 chain.

Do you mind sharing more about this?  How does Bisq act as a Second Layer?

Part of the issue IMO is that people look at ETH and say 'meh, good enough to do what I want' and don't put the development time into developing L2 for BTC

Very much agreed.  Had they used all the resources and effort to develop Bitcoin, there would be incredible progress.  But unfortunately, a lot of the effort is wasted on other projects.  I get why some of them do this.  Not every body can afford to put effort into something and spend hours a day developing something for free.  To many, this is a luxury lifestyle.  Being able to do what you want and still live a decent life.  But still.  This effort summed up would bring Bitcoin up through so many levels.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[franky1]

That logic makes no sense. Ethereum and all altcoins are entirely run by founders and companies that make all decisions for the network and impose whatever hard forks they want while users/operators simply have to go along with them because the founders/companies have 100% control.

you might want to read into blockstream "founders"
whom got paid hundreds of millions to push the core roadmap a certain way to develop the blockstream products

then look into who paid for that (DGC) and how the NYA agreement( DCG) pushed to activate certain things over the years for their products

give it a go. learn something

oh and i never said ethereum is not centralised. but that does not mean that if i am calling one thing central implies the other is not. or the opposite
they both can be centralised

heck even ex core lead devs admit core is centralised

check into moderation involvement and also the plans for moderation they have for cores github. look at all the same familiar names all circling each other and protecting each other and not letting anyone outside the boysclub independently critique them

this is why hundreds/thousands developers moved away from bitcoin. because it became a small self serving dev club of a dozen main names plus a fan club  of some outsiders that only get to grammar check to get "contribution status" and then some fans who idolise the centralised version and defend the dozen main devs to do as they please while nack, reject, ban and REKT anyone not liking the central roadmap

[thecodebear]

That logic makes no sense. Ethereum and all altcoins are entirely run by founders and companies that make all decisions for the network and impose whatever hard forks they want while users/operators simply have to go along with them because the founders/companies have 100% control.

you might want to read into blockstream "founders"
whom got paid hundreds of millions to push the core roadmap a certain way to develop the blockstream products

then look into who paid for that (DGC) and how the NYA agreement( DCG) pushed to activate certain things over the years for their products

give it a go. learn something

oh and i never said ethereum is not centralised. but that does not mean that if i am calling one thing central implies the other is not. or the opposite
they both can be centralised

heck even ex core lead devs admit core is centralised

check into moderation involvement and also the plans for moderation they have for cores github. look at all the same familiar names all circling each other and protecting each other and not letting anyone outside the boysclub independently critique them

this is why hundreds/thousands developers moved away from bitcoin. because it became a small self serving dev club of a dozen main names plus a fan club  of some outsiders that only get to grammar check to get "contribution status" and then some fans who idolise the centralised version and defend the dozen main devs to do as they please while nack, reject, ban and REKT anyone not liking the central roadmap

ok now i get it.


you're one of these blockstream conspiracy theorists that think they've secretly taken over bitcoin and control everything and are hurting bitcoin in order to promote lightning and all that nonsense. Yeah I've read this crap before on the internet. Uusally it's followed by a pitch to by some random centralized altcoin, or pushed by the failed BCH/BSV communities who try to convince people that their own centrally controlled altcoin is "the real" Bitcoin lol.

So you come up with nonsensical arguments about Bitcoin and LN because you thing blockstream is like the bitcoin Illuminati haha. gotcha. Your point of view makes sense now, its just incorrect. Are you a BSVer or BCHer but you just don't mention it because then your intentions would be too obvious? That seems likely.


Also you literally said people flee from bitcoin to ethereum because they wanted to get away from bitcoin's centralization. But bitcoin is the only decentralized cryptocurrency and Ethereum is far far more centralized so I was just pointing out how backwards that claim of yours is.

But yes sure SOMEONE has to maintain bitcoin's open source development - the github maintainers - so naturally there is going to be a group of developers that are technically in charge of the update process. That's the one thing in Bitcoin that isn't extremely decentralized, but there isn't really a good way around that. And obviously Ethereum and all other blockchains not only have that but have far more centralization in numerous ways because their development is entirely controlled by founders and companies, rather than just being open source projects maintained by lead developers. So you're just bubbling over with hypocrisy when you claim devs move from Bitcoin to Ethereum to get away from centralization, that move is very strongly in the direction of centralization. Any dev that wanted to move away from centralization would have to move to Bitcoin from anything else.

[DaveF]

Also, forgot about Bisq it's also a L2 chain.

Do you mind sharing more about this?  How does Bisq act as a Second Layer?

The BSQ token, that you use on the Bisq marketplace is a Layer 2 colored coin.

https://bisq.wiki/Introduction_to_the_DAO#BSQ_token
https://bisq.markets/
 
Which is why I said before there are a bunch that I can't think of, they are out there and exist as L2 but not really discussed that much.
And then we all forget how some things like Bisq / BSQ actually work and just accept that they do.

So I *know* there are other L2 things out there. I *know* I have discussed them. But 100% I don't remember what they were, since it was a brief discussion many years ago and never thought of again. The projects might not even exist in any real way anymore which adds to it.

-Dave

[franky1]

But yes sure SOMEONE has to maintain bitcoin's open source development - the github maintainers - so naturally there is going to be a group of developers that are technically in charge of the update process. That's the one thing in Bitcoin that isn't extremely decentralized, but there isn't really a good way around that. And obviously Ethereum and all other blockchains not only have that but have far more centralization in numerous ways because their development is entirely controlled by founders and companies, rather than just being open source projects maintained by lead developers. So you're just bubbling over with hypocrisy when you claim devs move from Bitcoin to Ethereum to get away from centralization, that move is very strongly in the direction of centralization. Any dev that wanted to move away from centralization would have to move to Bitcoin from anything else.

firstly
you have gone full doomad
pretending you have been around long enough to know better. then plead ignorant as if you havnt known or didnt try something to hide some other thing
and then waste even more time refusing to try to learn by just slinging insults
doomad has trained you well. you sound just like him

secondly
consensus allowed(past tense) for different dev brand groups too.. all working on the same level playing field. all working on the same network and all could propose certain things where the network upgrades when a certain feature has merit across the network.

now
its one team and that team is not a open gated community but a closed gate open book variety, they they now and again let some unpaid interns in to appear diverse. but thats just a tick box visual exercise not an actual productive effort

how about you spend less time defending the centralisation and instead think of things from the wider sense outside the small group and into the wider community of hundreds of millions

[Eternad]

https://www.mintlayer.org/en/ is an L2 project built on Bitcoin blockchain to introduce DeFi to Bitcoin ecosystem. I just saw this project since they advertised in the forum before. I believe this L2 solution can give the spark to Bitcoin once again if they become successful to their goal due to DeFi hype it can provide.

[thecodebear]

But yes sure SOMEONE has to maintain bitcoin's open source development - the github maintainers - so naturally there is going to be a group of developers that are technically in charge of the update process. That's the one thing in Bitcoin that isn't extremely decentralized, but there isn't really a good way around that. And obviously Ethereum and all other blockchains not only have that but have far more centralization in numerous ways because their development is entirely controlled by founders and companies, rather than just being open source projects maintained by lead developers. So you're just bubbling over with hypocrisy when you claim devs move from Bitcoin to Ethereum to get away from centralization, that move is very strongly in the direction of centralization. Any dev that wanted to move away from centralization would have to move to Bitcoin from anything else.

firstly
you have gone full doomad
pretending you have been around long enough to know better. then plead ignorant as if you havnt known or didnt try something to hide some other thing
and then waste even more time refusing to try to learn by just slinging insults
doomad has trained you well. you sound just like him

secondly
consensus allowed(past tense) for different dev brand groups too.. all working on the same level playing field. all working on the same network and all could propose certain things where the network upgrades when a certain feature has merit across the network.

now
its one team and that team is not a open gated community but a closed gate open book variety, they they now and again let some unpaid interns in to appear diverse. but thats just a tick box visual exercise not an actual productive effort

how about you spend less time defending the centralisation and instead think of things from the wider sense outside the small group and into the wider community of hundreds of millions

what are you even talking about dude. you make zero sense. i don't know who this doomad person is but you seem to be obsessed with him. Why do you even bother posting on bitcoin forums when you obviously like centralized altcoins better. You don't like Bitcoin, you don't like L2 solutions, you don't like LN, you don't like anyone who does like bitcoin....then just stick to your centralized altcoins. You've clearly stated an affinity for the more centralized, big block, controlled by a single authority crypto tokens out there over bitcoin. Literally no one on this forum would fall for your nonsense. It's legit sad you post these troll comments on the bitcoin forum and pretend you know what you're talking about when every post makes it clear you're just an anti-Bitcoin troll.

Your big insult in every post seems to mention someone named doomad, talk about sales pitches, talk about utopia, and pretend like no one else knows anything about bitcoin because they don't know it's all controlled by a blockstream conspiracy theory lol. ooooph!



"pretending you have been around long enough to know better. then plead ignorant as if you havnt known or didnt try something to hide some other thing
and then waste even more time refusing to try to learn by just slinging insults"
...I can't even make sense of this sentence lol. I don't even know what you are talking about at all here but I doubt you know either. I am not sure what you think I was pretending, or pleading, or haven't known, or didn't try, or trying something, to hide something, to waste time...... like dude are you okay? It sounds like you're one drink away from needing to go to the hospital.

[franky1]

funny part is
you sound too much like him now

i make posts about many topics. but you and doomad share the same silly small narrow mind about certain topics and say the same things about it. and then cry when i break your sales pitches and call you out on your lack of knowledge of it outside the dreamscape you put yourself into, in those small topics


due to sounding too much like the doomad mantra i guess doomad got soo desperate that he bought a alt-account to echo his narrative
(aww doomad did you run out of recruits so now have to make them up..
aww poor guy)

by the way. you have revealed yourself too much
pretending to not know someone you are/are copying, yet your rhetoric is too similar to just be coincidental

your final debate always results in "i dont understand you" which says more about you than me

bored now
bye bye social drama queen(s) who use insults as the excuses to not even try to learn.

[dkbit98]

You all know of anything besides Lightning?

There are many other layer two solutions for Bitcoin, and I think best collection for this is made by Jameson Lopp on his website.
He separated Lightnng Network from Sidechains, Drivechains, Statechains, Softchains and Spacechains, but all that are second layer solutions with different use cases.
I think that Liquid by Blockstream is second best know L2 solution, but it's still far from being popular or widely adopted Bitcoiners.
My favorite use of layer two solutions is for privacy, for example Mecury wallet with Statechains, but I hope to see more alternatives in future:
https://www.lopp.net/bitcoin-information/other-layers.html

[thecodebear]

You all know of anything besides Lightning?

There are many other layer two solutions for Bitcoin, and I think best collection for this is made by Jameson Lopp on his website.
He separated Lightnng Network from Sidechains, Drivechains, Statechains, Softchains and Spacechains, but all that are second layer solutions with different use cases.
I think that Liquid by Blockstream is second best know L2 solution, but it's still far from being popular or widely adopted Bitcoiners.
My favorite use of layer two solutions is for privacy, for example Mecury wallet with Statechains, but I hope to see more alternatives in future:
https://www.lopp.net/bitcoin-information/other-layers.html

Oh thanks that is very useful!