A standard chant from many on this house today in response to any dialogue of modifications to the Bitcoin protocol is “Don’t mess with Layer 1! You’ll be able to simply construct it on Layer 2!” This looks as if a really logical factor to do, proper? Why danger the safety and stability of L1 when you possibly can simply construct on prime of it? The issue is that this basically fails to know the connection between Layer 1 and Layer 2.
An L2 protocol is an extension of the L1. Every thing that an L2 is designed to do should finally scale back right down to what the L1 is able to. The blanket assertion of “simply do it on L2!” obfuscates quite a few implicit realities of what can or can’t be executed on an L2 given the present state of the bottom layer. As an illustration, think about making an attempt to construct the Lightning Community with out the existence of multisignature scripts. You couldn’t. It wouldn’t be attainable to share management between a couple of particular person, and the entire idea of a cost channel wouldn’t be attainable.
The Evolution of Fee Channels
The whole cause that cost channels can exist within the first place is due to the truth that L1 of Bitcoin helps the flexibility for a number of folks to share management of a UTXO with a multisig script. What is feasible on a L2 is inherently constrained by what is feasible on L1; sure, after all it’s attainable to do issues on L2 that aren’t attainable on L1, however the finally limiting issue of what you are able to do off-chain is what is feasible on-chain. Sooner cost affirmation in a cost channel is just attainable as a result of on-chain custody may be shared between a number of folks.
Even that isn’t sufficient for a secure cost channel although. The unique cost channel had a pre-signed transaction utilizing an nLocktime timelock that provides the funder their a refund after so many blocks, and solely supported cost channels in a single route. Transaction malleability made these unique cost channels unsafe to make use of. If the funding transaction was malleated by somebody earlier than confirming, then the refund transaction would grow to be invalidated and the funder would don’t have any approach to declare their a refund. The opposite social gathering within the channel may successfully maintain their cash hostage.
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, absolutely the timelock opcode, was the answer. CLTV lets you make a coin unspendable till a sure blockheight or time sooner or later. This, together with the flexibility to make scripts that may be spent in a number of methods, allowed the multisig UTXO to have a script path the place the funder may spend the entire funds themselves after a timelock. This assured the funder would have the ability to declare the cash again in a worst case state of affairs even when the funding transaction was malleated. The channel may nonetheless solely facilitate one-way funds although.
As a way to facilitate two-way funds, a correct resolution to transaction malleability was needed. This was an enormous motivator for Segregated Witness. A timelock is all that was needed for a a technique channel as a result of the cash solely elevated in a single route. The one danger to the sender was that the opposite social gathering would by no means declare what they’ve already been despatched on-chain, leaving the remainder of the sender’s cash trapped. The timelock refund each gave the receiver the motivation to assert funds on-chain earlier than the timelock, once they would lose all of the funds that they had already been despatched, and the sender a worst-case recourse in case one thing occurred to completely knock the receiver offline. Script doesn’t assist implementing sure quantities to sure future scripts, so a pre-signed transaction is the one viable preliminary refund mechanism if funds are to circulation in each instructions. This reopened the danger of funds being held hostage.
With the improve to Segwit, this drawback was solved. Rather than the timelock refund incentivizing trustworthy habits, the penalty key was launched. As a result of the funds in a two-way channel can circulation backwards and forwards in every route there’ll inevitably be a case the place each side had more cash in a previous state of the channel than the present one. By establishing a department in every channel state’s pre-signed transaction utilizing a penalty key, customers can change these after signing the brand new state and know if the opposite social gathering tries to make use of an previous transaction they will declare 100% of the funds within the channel. Timelocks are used to ensure the traditional spending path the place customers take their respective balances isn’t legitimate for a time to offer channel events the possibility to make use of the penalty key if needed. There’s an issue with this although, utilizing CLTV signifies that in some unspecified time in the future sooner or later the channel has to shut or else the timelock will expire and also you not have that security interval to penalize the dishonest social gathering.
Bi-directional cost channels additionally wanted CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, or relative timelocks, with a purpose to resolve this subject. Not like CLTV, which specifies a particular time or blockheight sooner or later, CSV specifies a relative size of time or variety of blocks from the time or block that the UTXO utilizing CSV within the script is confirmed within the blockchain. This allowed the security interval to perform for penalty key use with out requiring channels having to shut on-chain at a pre-decided time.
Even this doesn’t give us the Lightning Community although. There’s nonetheless no approach to truly route a cost throughout a number of cost channels. They’ll conduct funds in each instructions, however solely between the 2 folks concerned within the channel. As a way to route funds throughout a number of channels you want, you guessed it, different performance from the L1. Hash Time Locked Contracts are how that is achieved, and so they require each CLTV in addition to hashlocks. Hashlocks require offering the preimage to a hash with a purpose to spend the cash. It’s like a signature, besides you truly simply reveal the “non-public key” as an alternative of signing with it. This enables the receiver in a Lightning cost to supply a hashlock, and each intermediate channel between sender and receiver create a script that permits spending instantly with the hash preimage, or refunding the cash backwards after a timelock. If the receiver reveals the hashlock, everybody can declare the cash for forwarding the cost, if not, then the cash may be claimed backwards and reversed with out finalizing it.
So the Lightning Community because it exists at this time relies upon totally on 5 functionalities being attainable on the bottom layer of Bitcoin. Multisignature scripts, absolute timelocks, relative timelocks, Segregated Witness, and hashlocks. With none considered one of these options current on L1, Lightning as we all know it at this time wouldn’t be a attainable L2 we may assemble. Its existence as an L2 is totally depending on L1’s functionality to do sure issues. So if one had been to, in a world with a Bitcoin that didn’t assist hashlocks, timelocks in script, and no malleability repair, merely go “Simply construct a bidirectional multi-hop cost channel system on Layer 2! We shouldn’t be messing round with Layer 1” it will be a totally incoherent assertion.
The Catch
That mentioned, strictly technically talking, it nonetheless would have been attainable to construct that bidirectional multi-hop cost channel system in that world with out these three options on L1. At a large price by way of introducing belief in different folks to not steal your cash when they’re able to doing so. A federated sidechain. Everybody may have simply arrange a federated chain like Liquid or Rootstock and added these options to the sidechain, constructing the Lightning Community there as an alternative of on the mainchain. The issue with that’s, it’s not the identical factor. On a technical stage the community would perform precisely the identical, however nobody utilizing it will even have the identical diploma of management over their cash.
After they closed out a Lightning channel it will decide on a sidechain backed by a federation, i.e. it will simply be an accounting entry on prime of another person’s multisig pockets the place you don’t have any potential to manage these cash on L1. You simply should belief the distributed group working the federation to not rug everybody. Even drivechains (which mockingly itself requires new L1 performance to be executed) is simply one other type of federation on the finish of the day, with some further restrictions added to the withdrawal course of. The federation is simply miners as an alternative of individuals holding non-public keys.
That is the implicit actuality, whether or not they perceive it or not, underlying the response “simply construct it on L2!” at any time when somebody is discussing enhancements to L1. There’s the scope of what’s already attainable to construct on L2, which is fairly restricted and restricted by its personal scaling limitations, after which there’s the scope of what’s not already attainable. Every thing falling into the latter class is unattainable to construct with out interjecting some trusted entity or group of entities that finally is accountable for customers’ funds for them.
What’s the Level?
“Layer 2” isn’t a magic incantation. You’ll be able to’t simply wave a magic wand and chant the phrases, and something and every thing turns into magically attainable. There are strict inescapable limitations of what an L2 can accomplish, and people limitations are what the L1 can accomplish. That is simply an inherent truth of engineering actuality when a system like Bitcoin. You’ll be able to’t escape it in any means besides by degrading the belief assumptions increasingly more the extra versatile of an L2 you construct past the capabilities of L1.
So when discussions round these points happen, comparable to what enhancements may be made to L1, two issues are of utmost significance. First, these enhancements to L1 are virtually totally centered round enabling the development of extra versatile and scalable L2s. Secondly, L2s can not magically allow every thing. L2s have their very own limitations primarily based on these of the L1, and to have a dialogue relating to modifications to L1 with out acknowledging the one means round these limitations is to introduce trusted entities isn’t an trustworthy dialog.
It’s time to start out acknowledging actuality if we’re going to talk about what to do with Bitcoin going ahead, in any other case nothing is going on however denial of actuality and gaslighting. And that’s not productive.
