At the end of the article on April 23, a reader left a long message discussing many views on Bitcoin's on-chain asset DMT-NAT, decentralization, and more.

I basically agree with those views regarding Bitcoin, Ethereum, and decentralization.

This article will focus on sharing my views on DMT-NAT and other Bitcoin on-chain assets.

Regarding the DMT-NAT on-chain asset, I bought some back when it first emerged, and I shared my views on this asset in an article somewhere between 2023 and 2024 (I recall it being in a Q&A). However, I can't seem to find the exact article now.

DMT-NAT, like other on-chain Bitcoin assets that were popular back then (such as inscriptions, runes, BRC-20, SRC-20, etc.), is still held by me to this day.

Every time I see them, I can recall my past expectations for Bitcoin on-chain assets and the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Every time I reflect and summarize that history, I inevitably reconsider some experiences and lessons from it.

I try to share and summarize my views on these Bitcoin on-chain assets using relatively simple language.

Whether it is DMT-NAT or any Bitcoin on-chain asset, we can generally view them as realized through two steps:

The first step is to write the information representing the characteristics and state of these assets in character form onto the Bitcoin blockchain.

The second step is to interpret the meaning represented by this information using an algorithm capable of recognizing that information—specifically, which part represents the asset type, whether it is DMT-NAT or BRC-20; which part represents the asset quantity, whether it is 100 or 1000; and which part represents the asset holder, whether it is wallet A or wallet B...

In these two steps, the first step has relatively fewer issues and can be considered close to decentralization, as to some extent, it becomes harder to alter the information once it is written onto the Bitcoin blockchain.

On the other hand, the second step is the key to the whole realization process and also its weakness.

Anyone who has participated in these Bitcoin on-chain assets should remember that when participating in an asset (like DMT-NAT), they are always instructed to download the XXX wallet.

Why is it necessary to instruct participants to download the XXX wallet instead of saying to download any Bitcoin wallet or providing a broader list of wallets?

This is where the second step comes into play.

I just mentioned that to explain the state of this asset (i.e., to explain the information written onto the Bitcoin blockchain), there must be an algorithm that can interpret this information.

However, this algorithm is not part of the Bitcoin universal consensus protocol; it can only be considered a specific protocol or a small consensus formed within a small circle (such as the DMT-NAT community and enthusiasts).

Therefore, to be able to parse/support this asset (DMT-NAT), this specific algorithm needs to be written into the wallet, and only a few avant-garde wallet developers can achieve this, not all Bitcoin wallet developers.

Specifically for the DMT-NAT asset, the wallets that support it must be those that support inscriptions (Ordinals)/Tap protocol and other specific protocols, rather than general Bitcoin wallets.

Taking the implementation process of DMT-NAT as an example.

The specific process of the above first step is: using engraving technology/inscription method (inscription with the Ordinal protocol) to write its asset information onto the Bitcoin blockchain.

The specific process of the above second step is: using a wallet capable of parsing the DMT (Digital Matter Theory) protocol to interpret the asset information read from the Bitcoin blockchain. More specifically, the DMT protocol requires the wallet to specifically parse the following fields (more details can be found in the link at the end):

"p": "tap",

"op": "dmt-deploy",

"tick": "nat",

The definitions of these three fields are unique to the DMT-NAT asset.

Other Bitcoin on-chain assets like BRC-20 have different definitions for these three fields, specifically as follows:

"p": "brc-20",

"op": "mint",

"tick": "ordi",

Through comparison, we can see that every Bitcoin on-chain asset has its own unique definition, and thus its own unique parsing algorithm.

However, the parsing algorithms for these fields are not part of the Bitcoin universal consensus protocol. Therefore, currently, only a few avant-garde nodes/wallets among the entire Bitcoin network support this protocol—they are willing to strive for promoting this ecosystem, or willing to lead this ecosystem, or due to various other reasons, etc.

Because the support for these assets comes from only a very small number of nodes/wallets, the risk of centralization becomes evident—if under extreme circumstances, these few nodes are taken down (technically, achieving this is not that hard; it only depends on whether the attacker has an interest or if the cost-benefit is worth it), then the entire DMT-NAT asset would be jeopardized.

This is why I say this is the key and the weakness in the entire process.

DMT-NAT is like this, and every other Bitcoin on-chain asset (including inscriptions, etc.) is the same.

Of course, if we check the related websites of DMT-NAT today, we will find that there are indeed "not a few" wallets that support it, including Bitcoin wallets and Ethereum wallets (such as MetaMask, etc.), and there are even platforms like Uniswap that support its trading.

So what's going on here? How can Ethereum also support Bitcoin assets?

In fact, the so-called "DMT-NAT" assets supported by Ethereum wallets and exchanges are not the native DMT-NAT assets on the Bitcoin network; instead, they are "packaged assets" that have been bridged from Bitcoin to Ethereum by some enthusiasts or small teams.

Fundamentally speaking, these types of assets trace back to those specific nodes/wallets that support DMT-NAT.

Returning to the centralization risk mentioned earlier, how can we solve this centralization risk?

In my view, there are only two ways:

The first is to form a blockchain network with strong consensus, where all nodes support this parsing algorithm, and use this network to thoroughly resolve and support DMT-NAT assets.

The second is to integrate this specific algorithm/specific protocol (i.e., the DMT-NAT protocol) into the Bitcoin universal consensus protocol.

The first method is not easy.

How can the initiators of DMT-NAT get the numerous node developers/wallet developers in the entire Bitcoin ecosystem to participate in building this network and support this protocol in their products?

Is it through incentives or grand visions?

In fact, even the most widely recognized inscription asset in the entire Bitcoin ecosystem (BRC-20) has not yet achieved this.

The second method is the most thorough and a permanent solution. As long as the CORE team that controls the Bitcoin universal protocol approves to add the DMT protocol to the next update of Bitcoin, everything will be fine.

But the issue is, will the CORE team that controls the Bitcoin universal protocol be willing?

The answer is quite obvious.

They strongly rejected the inscription protocol; how could they be willing to accept DMT-NAT?

Not to mention the CORE team, I believe many readers of this article might murmur in their hearts: Bitcoin doesn’t need expansion, and there’s no need for such on-chain assets; maintaining the purity of Bitcoin is enough.

Some may ask, then why not simply execute a hard fork, allowing the enthusiasts and communities willing to support and promote these types of assets to create a totally supportive "new Bitcoin"?

There is no problem theoretically or technically with doing so, but the issue is, after the fork, which consensus will the industry at large recognize, the "old Bitcoin" or this "new Bitcoin"?

I believe it will still be the "old Bitcoin".

So, from any perspective, the consensus on this type of on-chain asset is actually not strong within the entire Bitcoin ecosystem, and I estimate it will be hard to grow stronger in the future.

Once, I had great expectations for Bitcoin on-chain assets and the Bitcoin ecosystem. If the broadly enthusiastic grassroots innovation movement in the Bitcoin ecosystem at that time could have been accepted by the CORE team, pushing them to upgrade and expand Bitcoin's protocol, then Bitcoin could truly have caught up with or even surpassed Ethereum in terms of ecosystem.

But various realities later forced me to acknowledge that this path is highly unlikely to work, and it's even harder for it to work in the future.

Therefore, I think that Bitcoin assets and the Bitcoin ecosystem as a niche hobby and exploration pose no problem, but if one wants it to develop into a robust ecosystem and become an asset with strong consensus, it is probably extremely challenging.

However, I have said in my previous articles, and I want to reiterate:

I have always admired and supported those enthusiasts who have been cultivating and contributing in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

If they can succeed, that would be even better, but even if they don't, perhaps they can accidentally discover some unexpected innovations in their explorations, which is also remarkable—many significant inventions and innovations in the history of technology were not planned out in advance but were often discovered by chance.

Reference link:

https://natgmi.com/natpaper

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。