Author: Jasmine
X/推: @Jasmine9m88
Click "Read Original" at the end of the article to go to the original post.
As is well known, Casey launched the Runes protocol because he believed that BRC20 had technical shortcomings and hoped to alleviate the pressure on the Bitcoin network through a new FT protocol. The Runes protocol is based on UTXO, which not only effectively reduces the inflation of useless UTXO but also has good compatibility and scalability. Its core protocol is simplified to only 500 lines of code, with the aim of providing developers and users with a simple and easy-to-use homogeneous token protocol.
Casey: "I'm not sure if creating a new replaceable token protocol for Bitcoin is a good idea. 99.9% of replaceable tokens are scams and memes. However, they don't seem to disappear in the short term, just like casinos don't seem to disappear in the short term. Creating a good replaceable token protocol for Bitcoin may bring considerable transaction fee income to the Bitcoin network, attract developers' attention, and bring more users. In addition, if the on-chain footprint of this protocol is small and promotes responsible UTXO management, then it may be more effective in reducing harm compared to existing protocols."
Since the announcement of the development of the Runes protocol in September last year, after several months of careful polishing, what are the characteristics and advantages of Runes compared to BRC20 and other FT protocols?
Based on Casey's recent speeches, interviews, blogs, and content on GitHub, this article has sorted out the above questions for reference, which does not represent the author's point of view. As I am not from a technical background, feel free to point out any errors.
Runes VS BRC20
1. Simpler and More Efficient Operations
Reduced Number of Transactions: Deploying and minting BRC20 tokens each require two transactions, while token claiming requires three. Runes, on the other hand, only requires one transaction to complete all operations and does not generate redundant useless UTXO.
Improved Transfer Efficiency: A BRC20 transfer transaction only supports one recipient and one type of token, while Runes supports transferring to multiple recipients simultaneously and can transfer multiple types of Runes tokens.
2. More Developer-Friendly
Data Storage and Indexing: BRC20's data is stored in JSON format in segregated witness, based on the account model, where balances are tied to addresses. Runes' data is stored in the OP_RETURN field of transactions, using the UTXO model, where token balances are directly tied to UTXOs. Therefore, verifying Runes balances only requires validating owned UTXOs, without the need to scan the entire network state as with BRC20, making it more index-friendly.
Providing Reference Implementation: When BRC20 was introduced, it only had specifications without supporting facilities such as indexes, browsers, and wallets. Runes, on the other hand, comes with a reference implementation (ord) upon its introduction, including indexes, browsers, and wallet functions. BRC20 relies on ordinal theory for token transfer, making it complex. Runes, being independent and not relying on ordinals or inscriptions, should be easier to write alternative implementations.
3. Stronger Compatibility and Scalability
Compatible with UTXO Layer 2 Protocols: Runes' design based on UTXO allows it to better integrate with Bitcoin layer 2 protocols such as the Lightning Network and CKB, which are also based on UTXO. Through "UTXO isomorphic binding," CKB can even directly provide smart contract functionality for Runes.
Support for SPV (Simple Payment Verification): SPV wallets are lightweight Bitcoin wallets that only download and verify block header data relevant to user transactions. Users can use SPV wallets to manage and use Runes tokens, enjoying a lightweight, concise, and fast transaction experience, which BRC20 cannot achieve.
Support for Soft Fork Upgrades: Compared to the BRC-20 protocol, Runes has stronger scalability and can be upgraded through soft forks.
4. More Flexible Token Issuance (etch)
Support for Name Lengths of 1-28 Characters: BRC20 token names are limited to four characters, while Runes token names can be adjusted between 1 and 28 characters. To balance the issuance pace of Runes and prevent popular short names from being quickly occupied, the Runes protocol requires a minimum name length of 13 letters in the first four months after launch. After that, the minimum length will decrease by one letter approximately every four months until the next halving event, allowing the creation of Runes with single-character names (a total of 26).
Clearer Names: Unlike BRC20 token names, which can contain any Unicode characters, Runes names only support letters from A to Z and the • character, making the names clearer and harder to forge.
Addressing Name Front-Running: Using the Commit-Reveal mechanism to prevent miners from knowing Runes++ names in advance and front-running them.
Introducing Diverse Token Issuance Methods: In addition to the open etch (projects cannot pre-allocate tokens) and fixed total issuance (projects can pre-allocate tokens) issuance methods, consideration is also being given to adding more gameplay to relax the non-reservable requirement of open etch. Furthermore, Runes can also be "expressive" - perhaps by creating parent-child inscriptions, Runes can be placed under child inscriptions.
5. Higher Security
Resilience Against Dusting Attacks: BRC20 may be vulnerable to dusting attacks (attackers send large amounts of small BRC20 transfers to victim addresses, potentially locking the recipient's balance), while Runes does not have this risk.
In addition, Casey also roughly compared Runes with several older FT protocols, and Runes' advantages, in addition to its simplicity, are also reflected in the following aspects:
Runes VS RGB
Better User Experience: Receiving RGB tokens requires UTXOs to already exist on the address, while Runes does not require this.
Stronger Security: Runes adopts Bitcoin's UTXO model, so it is not affected by race conditions.
On-Chain Transactions: When conducting RGB transactions, not only do you need to download data from the Bitcoin blockchain, but you also need to download and upload data to servers. Runes is on-chain, so transactions can be conducted without the need to upload or download server data, and can even be conducted without communicating with the recipient.
Unique Names: Runes token names are unique, while RGB token names can be duplicated.
Runes VS Taproot Assets
On-Chain Transactions: Similar to RGB, #Taproot Assets transactions not only require downloading data from the Bitcoin blockchain, but also require downloading and uploading data to servers. Runes transactions are completed on-chain without the need for additional server data interaction.
Runes VS Counterparty
No Native Tokens Required: Counterparty requires the use of native assets to create tokens, while Runes does not.
Based on UTXO Model: Unlike Counterparty's account-based model, Runes uses a UTXO-based model. This helps avoid address reuse issues, enhances script functionality, and integrates more naturally with the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Script Compatibility: Runes automatically supports all current and future script opcodes and address types, while Counterparty requires additional development of these features, increasing the flexibility and scalability of Runes.
Runes VS ERC20
Consistency: All Runes token behaviors are uniform, while ERC20 token issuance depends on their respective smart contracts, which may lead to complexity and require additional audits.
Unique Names: Runes token names are unique, while ERC20 token names can be duplicated.
"One day we will all pass away, perhaps what's important is what we leave behind. Do you want to leave an eternal mark on the sturdy chain of Bitcoin, or build on other chains that may disappear?"
—Casey
That's all.
References:
https://rodarmor.com/blog/runes/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS406ToIRo4
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。
