Why can't the Bitcoin ecosystem replicate Ethereum's diverse range of ecosystem applications?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Why can't the Bitcoin ecosystem replicate Ethereum's diverse range of ecosystem applications?
This market can't be all MEME.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Haotian
After the ordinals market heated up, many people placed excessive expectations on BTC L2, believing that Bitcoin’s Layer 2 would achieve the same glory as Ethereum's Layer 2?
Yet in reality, Bitcoin’s ecosystem may remain stuck in the “asset issuance” narrative for a long time. Replicating Ethereum-style diverse applications on Bitcoin might simply be unfeasible. Why? Here are several technical reasons:
Bitcoin and Ethereum belong to two entirely different blockchain species. The former is a “stateless” chain, while the latter enables complex, composable financial logic via smart contracts.
To replicate Ethereum’s diverse DeFi applications—DEXs, lending, derivatives, aggregators—on Bitcoin, we must first equip Bitcoin with programmable capabilities of “state + computation + validation.”
- State: Currently, Bitcoin’s UTXO set can only compute real-time “balances.” Historical balances and transaction records—the foundational states required for contracts—are fundamentally impossible to reconstruct;
- Computation: Bitcoin’s ScriptPubkey unlocking conditions represent its core computational ability, but this capability is extremely limited and struggles to express complex business logic;
- Validation: Full nodes on the Bitcoin network can verify UTXO balances and script signatures, but only at this basic level. The network cannot even validate the specific execution outcomes of such logic.
In short, to run complex financial applications on Bitcoin, we need to extend Bitcoin’s limited native “capabilities” by building a programmable framework incorporating “state + computation + validation.”
Looking back at Ethereum’s scaling journey, it explored multiple paths—Plasma, Rollup, Validium—before ultimately settling on Rollup as the mainstream solution. In contrast, Bitcoin’s early scaling efforts, such as block size adjustments and SegWit, are already behind us. Currently, the debate centers around competing paradigms: the sidechain Stacks, client-side validation via RGB, and state channel validation via Lightning Network.
Since Plasma-based sidechains cannot support smart contracts and Validium is too independent to inherit mainnet security, Rollup emerged victorious precisely because it retains Ethereum’s data availability (DA) security while offering flexible TPS improvements. Crucially, Rollup contracts on the mainnet can be validated by Ethereum validators, and users retain the right to challenge fraud and withdraw funds. Despite practical shortcomings in implementation, the Rollup model has achieved broad market consensus in theory.
In comparison, Bitcoin’s current scaling approaches—sidechains, client-side validation, and state channels—each follow divergent paths:
- Sidechain Stacks supports smart contracts and a wide range of applications, but operates under an independent consensus separate from Bitcoin, making widespread acceptance difficult;
- Client-side validation via RGB inherits Bitcoin’s UTXO model, enabling complex off-chain transactions through clients, but lacks bidirectional verification or binding constraints with the Bitcoin mainnet, so its development remains nascent;
- The Lightning Network, backed by proximity to Bitcoin’s core developers, is currently seen as the most orthodox scaling path. However, its progress has been slow. The recent launch of Taproot Assets runs directly on the mainnet rather than on Lightning, and actual deployment onto the Lightning Network remains uncertain.
If we use Ethereum’s model as a benchmark, a mature Layer 2 should be secured by the mainnet, offer clear scalability benefits, and crucially, support smart contracts with diverse use cases. By these standards, none of the current Bitcoin solutions—sidechains, client validation, or state channels—fully measure up.
Mainnet security: Lightning Network > Client validation > Sidechain;
Scalability: Sidechain > Client validation > Lightning Network;
Smart contract capability: Sidechain > Client validation > Lightning Network.
The new dogma of scaling becomes clear when compared: If security is paramount, then we must wait for Lightning Network to scale; if pure scalability is the goal, there’s no need to modify Bitcoin—just build a suitable sidechain; if all three factors must be balanced, client-side validation via RGB emerges as the optimal choice.
So, which path truly deserves to carry forward Bitcoin’s Layer 2 vision?
1) Sidechains: They can technically do everything, but they operate under independent consensus—no different from Ethereum. Here lies a logical paradox: since we already have Ethereum as a powerful smart contract platform, why build a new Bitcoin sidechain? Wouldn’t it be better for Bitcoin to maintain its role as a store of value, while leaving application innovation to chains like Ethereum? What’s the point of moving backward?
2) Client-side validation: Similar in spirit to Ethereum’s Rollup, RGB client validation offers a more suitable foundation for Bitcoin’s mainstream scaling. However, like its name suggests, this space remains a “black box” today—its potential is unknown, and it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions;
3) State channels: Due to Lightning Labs’ legitimacy, the Lightning Network was once seen as Bitcoin’s best hope for scaling. But after Taproot Assets, Lightning appears increasingly focused on payments—a path resembling Ethereum’s Plasma-based payment sidechains—which likely won’t evolve into a general-purpose Layer 2 capable of supporting diverse financial applications.
Ultimately, trying to directly transplant Ethereum’s diverse DeFi landscape onto Bitcoin may be premature. While Bitcoin’s ecosystem may expand significantly, it doesn’t necessarily have to mimic Ethereum.
Consider this: even on Ethereum, innovation is constrained by its own established principles. How much stricter, then, must the ideological boundaries be on Bitcoin?
That’s all.
Ethereum’s Layer 2 ecosystem thrives because smart contracts enable infinite composability—like stacking Lego bricks endlessly. The biggest risk here is consensus overload, but within reasonable limits, the diversity of applications provides developers with a vast creative playground.
In contrast, Bitcoin’s Layer 2 ecosystem suffers from weak foundational functionality, yet faces immense pressure to innovate—all under the weight of an exceptionally strict security consensus. Its strength is also its weakness: consensus built Bitcoin’s absolute moat, but it’s also the root cause of constrained ecosystem innovation.
Hence, the resulting chaos and contradiction leave most capital, institutions, and mainstream users confused.
VCs outside the Bitcoin ecosystem hold massive capital but stand at the door, unable to enter—because they can’t make sense of how to frame a coherent “build” narrative on Bitcoin. Meanwhile, developers within the ecosystem waver between competing directions, lacking unified momentum.
Retail investors, though driven by FOMO, care only about the wealth stories promised by ordinals and token launches—few bother with actual development.
Even though asset issuance on Ethereum takes many forms, it ultimately revolves around the invisible thread of “value capture.” Whether driven by VCs or retail, projects eventually need to create lasting value.
Bitcoin’s ecosystem is no different. The market cannot remain forever in a phase of pure “asset issuance” prosperity. It will inevitably require continuous technical breakthroughs, sustained building, and ongoing project development.
This market cannot consist entirely of memes.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Haotian | CryptoInsight
