A typical chant from many on this area as of late in response to any dialogue of adjustments 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 may simply construct on high 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 little thing that an L2 is designed to do should finally cut back all the way 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 performed on an L2 given the present state of the bottom layer. For example, 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 individual, and the entire idea of a cost channel wouldn’t be attainable.
The Evolution of Cost Channels
The complete purpose that cost channels can exist within the first place is due to the truth that L1 of Bitcoin helps the power 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, in fact 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 barely attainable as a result of on-chain custody could 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 reimbursement after so many blocks, and solely supported cost channels in a single route. Transaction malleability made these authentic cost channels unsafe to make use of. If the funding transaction was malleated by somebody earlier than confirming, then the refund transaction would change into invalidated and the funder would don’t have any method to declare their a reimbursement. The opposite get together within the channel may successfully maintain their cash hostage.
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, absolutely the timelock opcode, was the answer. CLTV means that you can make a coin unspendable till a sure blockheight or time sooner or later. This, together with the power 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 all the funds themselves after a timelock. This assured the funder would be capable to declare the cash again in a worst case situation even when the funding transaction was malleated. The channel may nonetheless solely facilitate one-way funds although.
With a view to facilitate two-way funds, a correct resolution to transaction malleability was vital. This was an enormous motivator for Segregated Witness. A timelock is all that was vital 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 get together 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 say funds on-chain earlier than the timelock, after they would lose all of the funds they’d already been despatched, and the sender a worst-case recourse in case one thing occurred to completely knock the receiver offline. Script doesn’t help implementing sure quantities to sure future scripts, so a pre-signed transaction is the one viable preliminary refund mechanism if funds are to movement in each instructions. This reopened the chance of funds being held hostage.
With the improve to Segwit, this downside was solved. Rather than the timelock refund incentivizing sincere habits, the penalty key was launched. As a result of the funds in a two-way channel can movement backwards and forwards in every route there’ll inevitably be a case the place either 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 trade these after signing the brand new state and know if the opposite get together 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 provide channel events the possibility to make use of the penalty key if vital. There’s an issue with this although, utilizing CLTV implies 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 now not have that security interval to penalize the dishonest get together.
Bi-directional cost channels additionally wanted CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, or relative timelocks, in an effort to resolve this concern. In contrast to CLTV, which specifies a selected 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 method to really route a cost throughout a number of cost channels. They will conduct funds in each instructions, however solely between the 2 folks concerned within the channel. With a view 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 in an effort to spend the cash. It’s like a signature, besides you really simply reveal the “personal key” as a substitute of signing with it. This enables the receiver in a Lightning cost to offer 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 could be claimed backwards and reversed with out finalizing it.
So the Lightning Community because it exists immediately relies upon solely on 5 functionalities being attainable on the bottom layer of Bitcoin. Multisignature scripts, absolute timelocks, relative timelocks, Segregated Witness, and hashlocks. With none certainly one of these options present on L1, Lightning as we all know it immediately wouldn’t be a attainable L2 we may assemble. Its existence as an L2 is solely depending on L1’s functionality to do sure issues. So if one had been to, in a world with a Bitcoin that didn’t help 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 might 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 huge value 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 a substitute of on the mainchain. The issue with that’s, it’s not the identical factor. On a technical degree the community would perform precisely the identical, however nobody utilizing it might even have the identical diploma of management over their cash.
After they closed out a Lightning channel it might choose a sidechain backed by a federation, i.e. it might simply be an accounting entry on high of another person’s multisig pockets the place you haven’t any means to manage these cash on L1. You simply must belief the distributed group working the federation to not rug everybody. Even drivechains (which mockingly itself requires new L1 performance to be performed) is simply one other type of federation on the finish of the day, with some additional restrictions added to the withdrawal course of. The federation is simply miners as a substitute of individuals holding personal keys.
That is the implicit actuality, whether or not they perceive it or not, underlying the response “simply construct it on L2!” each time somebody is discussing enhancements to L1. There’s the scope of what’s already attainable to construct on L2, which is quite restricted and restricted by its personal scaling limitations, after which there’s the scope of what’s not already attainable. Every little thing falling into the latter class is unimaginable to construct with out interjecting some trusted entity or group of entities that finally is answerable for customers’ funds for them.
What’s the Level?
“Layer 2” is just not a magic incantation. You’ll be able to’t simply wave a magic wand and chant the phrases, and something and all the pieces 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 taking a look at a system like Bitcoin. You’ll be able to’t escape it in any manner 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 could be made to L1, two issues are of utmost significance. First, these enhancements to L1 are virtually solely centered round enabling the development of extra versatile and scalable L2s. Secondly, L2s can’t magically allow all the pieces. L2s have their very own limitations primarily based on these of the L1, and to have a dialogue concerning adjustments to L1 with out acknowledging the one manner round these limitations is to introduce trusted entities is just not an sincere dialog.
It’s time to begin acknowledging actuality if we’re going to focus on what to do with Bitcoin going ahead, in any other case nothing is occurring however denial of actuality and gaslighting. And that’s not productive.