Technical Analysis of Stacks: The Pioneer of Bitcoin Layer 2
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Technical Analysis of Stacks: The Pioneer of Bitcoin Layer 2
After seven years of development and market validation, Stacks has established a complete technology stack, providing a viable solution model for implementing smart contracts on BTC.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Haotian
Leveraging the recent strong performance of the old coin sector, I’d like to discuss @Stacks—the undisputed veteran within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
1) It didn't chase the FOMO wave around BTC Layer2, yet it has long been a "pioneer";
2) Its POX consensus mechanism rides on BTC's growth via economic alignment—effectively hitching a ride on the BTC express train;
3) The sBTC design enables native BTC bridging. While lacking Babylon’s cryptographic sophistication, it still qualifies as truly “native.”
Let’s break down each point technically:
1) As early as 2017, when Bitcoin was torn between conservatives and innovators, the former insisted BTC should remain minimalist—focused solely on being a store of value—while the latter argued BTC must expand its use cases by supporting smart contracts to compete with emerging chains like Ethereum.
Stacks clearly sided with the innovators—an unconventional choice at the time. Years later, however, the rise of the Ordinals protocol, the surge in BTC-based asset issuance, and the broader push toward BTC Layer2 scaling have all validated Stacks’ original strategic vision.
In this sense, Stacks can be seen as the true pioneer behind today’s BTC ecosystem expansion. Yet amid the current BTC FOMO wave—largely driven by Chinese communities—Stacks appears to have remained absent from the hype and discourse. Nevertheless, its purely technical focus and steady development have allowed it to benefit from market expectations around BTC Layer2, delivering solid overall market performance.
After all, as a “first mover” backed by seven years of iteration and market validation, Stacks has developed a complete technology stack, offering a viable blueprint for implementing smart contracts on BTC.
2) Regarding Stacks’ technical architecture and operational mechanics, my impression is that it feels somewhat “unconventional”—and that starts with its unique consensus mechanism.
Instead of adopting the then-popular PoW or PoS models, Stacks introduced the novel Proof-of-Transfer (PoX) consensus.
Under PoX, miners on the Stacks network must prove they’ve transferred BTC to a designated address on the Bitcoin mainnet in order to earn the right to mine blocks on Stacks and receive $STX rewards. Meanwhile, users (holders) who stake their STX tokens for a fixed period are entitled to a proportional share of the BTC transferred by these miners.
Clearly, PoX follows a “two-layer” design: Bitcoin serves as the base layer, securing the network and anchoring BTC assets to provide consensus-level security, while Stacks acts as the execution layer, enabling complex applications such as smart contracts and network coordination.
This design fully preserves the authority of the Bitcoin mainnet while achieving a “strong correlation” through economic coupling. How so?
Besides standard node operation and electricity costs, the primary expense for miners is the BTC they must spend. The higher BTC’s price, the more expensive mining becomes—which in turn makes STX rewards more valuable.
Users stake STX to help secure the network, similar to how validators operate in most PoS systems. However, unlike typical PoS networks where staking returns often fail to offset volatility in secondary markets, Stacks stakers actually earn BTC as rewards.
This creates a healthy internal economic loop: miners spend BTC to compete for block rights; that BTC is then redistributed to stakers, incentivizing more users to stake for BTC yield. This reduces STX liquidity, potentially boosting STX’s market price, which further motivates miners to spend BTC on mining.
For miners, if STX mining becomes unprofitable, the entire mining economy collapses. For users, the risk of staking STX is hedged by receiving real BTC rewards.
This unique incentive structure gives Stacks an edge in resilience against market volatility and ecosystem stability. Especially during sustained BTC bull runs, both network costs and reward payouts scale upward—meaning the total value locked in the network grows accordingly. Moreover, mining difficulty adjusts relative to BTC’s market price, ensuring the cost of BTC投入 remains proportionate to STX rewards.
In my view, the unconventional—or even forward-looking—aspect of Stacks’ PoX lies in its anchoring to BTC, the most stable asset in crypto. By relying on BTC for security and using BTC to enhance network expectations, Stacks sidesteps the chronic issue plaguing most PoS networks: long-term staking losses due to token depreciation. With BTC’s massive appreciation acting as a “super buff,” this problem is effectively neutralized.
3) Recently, Stacks’ product lead @andrerserrano shared an overview of the upcoming mainnet launch of sBTC, highlighting what makes this so-called “native BTC bridged asset” stand out.
Compared to conventional wrapped assets—where a centralized custodian locks assets on Chain A and mints equivalent tokens on Chain B—sBTC achieves native BTC security, eliminates cross-chain dependency, enables atomic transactions, and removes centralized points of failure. How?
Stacks uses a threshold multi-signature scheme to secure its network. On the Bitcoin mainnet, a large number of “signers” validate transactions and execute multi-sig operations. When a user sends BTC to a designated multi-sig address, once confirmed, the signers monitor and verify the transaction, automatically minting an equivalent amount of sBTC on the Stacks network for the user.
The key lies in the deployment of numerous independent signer nodes—say, 100 in total. A transaction is only finalized when a sufficient threshold of nodes signs off, e.g., 68 out of 100.
To better understand the pros and cons of this multi-sig approach, consider @babylonlabs_io as a comparison: Babylon uses advanced cryptographic techniques to prevent malicious behavior—if a node misbehaves, its private key gets exposed, greatly reducing the likelihood of attacks.
In contrast, Stacks’ method is simpler—relying on trust across many lightweight nodes and a high signature threshold to minimize attack probability. Should malicious activity occur, Stacks’ economic bonding mechanism complements the setup well, with strong slashing penalties significantly deterring node misconduct.
That said, this scale-dependent multi-sig security model does come with limitations—namely inflexibility. For example, if most of the 100 nodes rotate their addresses, the existing multi-sig wallet holding BTC would need to migrate funds forcibly. To address this, Stacks is exploring next-gen solutions like Multisig2, featuring dynamic membership management, layered verification, and tiered permission controls—aiming for greater flexibility and precision in ongoing technical upgrades.
All in all.
Finally, beyond technical merits, one critical advantage deserves mention: Stacks benefits from dual advantages as a U.S.-based entity and as the first crypto token to achieve SEC Reg+ registration compliance. In the current macro context of Trump’s pro-crypto administration agenda, this opens up significant room for speculation and growth.
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
