Is Ethereum really a test chain for Bitcoin?

Author: Aaron Zhang

This question has become a meme in the crypto community, but it hides a deep misunderstanding of the technical routes of the two ecosystems. Let's tear apart the surface joke and see what the technical reality is.

Modular Era: Is Ethereum Moving Closer to Bitcoin?

The most interesting phenomenon is that Ethereum is dismantling itself. Ethereum's Rollup-centric roadmap essentially states: we no longer need to perform complex computations on L1; let the execution be handled by Rollups, while the main chain is only responsible for consensus and data availability.

Does this sound familiar? This is the design philosophy that Bitcoin has adhered to since day one — the main chain remains simple, while complex functions are delegated to layer two. The Lightning Network realized this idea back in 2018, and now the RGB protocol has taken this model to the extreme.

So the question arises: if Ethereum's ultimate form is "only doing the consensus layer," do we still need a new chain for consensus? Bitcoin already has the world's strongest security budget and the most decentralized network; why not just use it directly?

When Ethereum pushes all application logic to Rollups, it is essentially acknowledging the correctness of Bitcoin's design. Off-chain execution, on-chain verification — isn't this the core idea of RGB?

The Vitalik Effect: The Contradiction of Innovation and Decentralization

The fastest period of innovation for Ethereum coincided with the peak of Vitalik's influence. From smart contracts to DeFi, from EIP-1559 to the PoS transition, these groundbreaking advancements were all driven by the core team's strong push.

But what about now? Ethereum's governance has become increasingly decentralized, EIP proposals require more consensus, and hard forks are approached with greater caution. The cost of this decentralization is a slowdown in the pace of innovation.

In contrast, Bitcoin has maintained an extremely conservative development model, but this "slow is fast" philosophy has allowed it to maintain a record of zero major security incidents over 16 years. When your security budget reaches hundreds of billions of dollars, stability is more important than speed.

Technical Debt: The Truth About VM

Critics often say: Bitcoin's VM is too weak to run complex ZK verifications. This statement is both true and false.

Bitcoin's Script is indeed not Turing complete, but this is a design choice, not a technical flaw. Satoshi deliberately limited the complexity of the script because he knew that simpler systems are safer.

However, this does not mean that Bitcoin cannot perform complex tasks. Taproot has already unlocked more powerful scripting capabilities, and the RGB protocol has implemented a complete state machine on Bitcoin. The key is to understand: you do not need to do everything at the base layer.

Ethereum's EVM executes every smart contract on the mainnet, which was necessary in the early days, but now appears to be a form of technical debt. Why should all network nodes execute your DEX trading logic? This is why Ethereum is turning to Rollups.

UTXO vs Account Model: Which is More Suitable for Modularity?

This is one of the most misunderstood technical debates.

The traditional view holds that the account model is better suited for complex applications because you can directly read balance states. But in the modular era, this advantage becomes a disadvantage.

The biggest advantage of the UTXO model is parallelism. Each UTXO is independent and can be verified in parallel, which is a huge advantage for layer two networks. Do you see why the Lightning Network is so efficient? Because each channel is an independent UTXO.

Moreover, who says UTXO cannot implement an account model? If you need account balances, you can completely achieve this through log replay, just like what Electrum servers do. UTXO provides a lower-level abstraction upon which you can build any model.

Ethereum's account model seems convenient, but it enforces the concept of global state. In a modular world, this becomes a burden.

Security Budget: The Real Rules of the Game

Let's return to the fundamental question: what is the core value of blockchain? It is decentralized security.

Bitcoin's mining network consumes a massive amount of electricity, which is often criticized as "waste." But this "waste" creates the world's strongest security budget. The cost of attacking the Bitcoin network is astronomical, something no PoS network can match.

When your layer two network handles trillions of dollars in value, the underlying security is everything. Although Ethereum's PoS is more "green," its security is based on economic incentives rather than physical costs. Theoretically, an attacker with sufficient capital could buy a large amount of ETH to attack the network.

This is why more and more projects are choosing to build layer two solutions on Bitcoin. RGB, Lightning, and even some DeFi protocols are leveraging Bitcoin's security budget.

OP_CAT: Misunderstood Complexity

Many people believe that Bitcoin needs OP_CAT to achieve complex functions, but this is another misunderstanding.

The recovery of OP_CAT would indeed make Bitcoin stronger, but the current Taproot is already powerful enough. Through MAST and Schnorr signatures, you can implement very complex script logic, and it appears on-chain like a regular transaction.

More importantly, complexity should not be solved at the base layer. If you need Turing-complete computation, do it at layer two. The responsibility of the base layer is to provide security and consensus, not to run your game logic.

Reality Check: The Market is Speaking

Technical debates are interesting, but the market does not lie.

The RGB protocol will officially launch in July 2025, and Tether has announced that it will issue USDT on Bitcoin. This is not a technical experiment; it is a demand from the real world. What does it mean when the world's largest stablecoin issuer chooses Bitcoin as its new issuance platform?

At the same time, Ethereum's Layer 2 ecosystem is experiencing explosive growth, but most users do not even know which Rollup they are using. This proves a point: users do not care about underlying technology; they care about security, cost, and experience.

Under this standard, Bitcoin + layer two solutions have already surpassed Ethereum L1 in many scenarios.

Redefining "Test Chain"

So, is Ethereum really a test chain for Bitcoin?

In a sense, yes. Ethereum has validated many concepts: smart contracts, DeFi, NFTs, Rollup technology. But once these validations are complete, actual deployments often choose more secure and decentralized platforms.

But this is not to belittle Ethereum. The value of Ethereum lies in innovation and experimentation, which are essential for the crypto ecosystem. Without Ethereum, we would not have DeFi; without the concept validation of DeFi, RGB would not know what functions to implement.

The real question is not who is a test chain for whom, but how to understand the positioning of the two systems:

Ethereum: A rapidly iterating experimental platform focused on application layer innovation
Bitcoin: A robust settlement layer focused on value storage and ultimate security

The Future is Here: The Victory of Modularity

The trend of modular blockchains is irreversible. Whether it is Ethereum's Rollup or Bitcoin's RGB, both are proving the same point: specialized division of labor is more efficient than monolithic architecture.

In this new paradigm, the value of the base layer lies not in the richness of functionality, but in the strength of security. Bitcoin has an undisputed advantage in this regard.

Of course, Ethereum will not disappear. It will continue to serve as a breeding ground for innovation, validating new concepts and technologies. But as these concepts mature, deploying on Bitcoin's layer two solutions may be the better choice.

This is not a zero-sum game; it is the natural division of labor in the ecosystem. Just as the internet has the TCP/IP protocol stack, the crypto world is also forming its own protocol stack. Bitcoin provides the foundational security and consensus, while Ethereum and other platforms provide application layer innovation. In the future, we may see BTC as a security layer, with Ethereum L2 or even shared security returning to BTC.

Ultimately, the term "test chain" may need to be redefined. In the rapidly evolving field of technology, every platform is a "test chain" in some sense; the key is how to learn from testing and apply best practices to the most suitable infrastructure.

The Truth About Technical Routes

Let me put it more bluntly: the choice of technical route often reflects a choice of values.

Ethereum has chosen flexibility and speed of innovation at the cost of complexity and potential security risks. Bitcoin has chosen simplicity and security at the cost of slow functional development.

But in the modular era, this trade-off becomes less significant. You can build Ethereum-level functionality on the secure foundation of Bitcoin. RGB is the best proof of this.

So, is Ethereum a test chain for Bitcoin? The question itself is flawed. They are not in competition; they are in cooperation. Ethereum validates concepts, while Bitcoin provides the deployment platform. This is how the crypto ecosystem should look.

Technology will ultimately converge on the optimal solution. And in the field of blockchain, the optimal solution may be: the most secure base layer + the most flexible application layer. Bitcoin provides the former, while Ethereum (and other innovative platforms) explore the latter.

This is not a story of one replacing the other; it is a sign of the entire industry maturing.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。