ckBTC: a canister-issued bitcoin twin token on the IC, 1:1-backed by BTC

That’s a great question. For now, nothing. In future upgrades to ckBTC we can do something with these, and one thing that definitely would make sense is to let small amounts be transferred out such that they can be used to pay the cycles of these canisters. When there would be even more BTC accumulated due to fees that exceeds what is needed to pay for cycles, one idea i had is that we could move those out into an account that uses it to buy ICPs and burn the ICPs, such that it’s for the good of the ICP holders. Do you have any suggestions @Jonathan?

And to be clear, all these ideas would need to come in the form of upgrades to the ckBTC canisters that are approved by the NNS, no individual can access those underlying BTCs.


I like the idea, I think we should have more ICP burn sources. . This would help create deflationary pressure. In addition to contributing to the integration of DEFI in bitcoin, it would provide extra value by burning ICP, benefiting all of us who financed the project, buying and holding ICP.

1 Like

@Manu, I think your idea helps to balance the ecosystem.

Increased value of BTC:ICP
→ more ICP burned from (ck)BTC tx
→ increased value of ICP

I like that, but I’ll follow up if I have other suggestions.

1 Like

I have tried to add cktestbtc to ME wallet and it succeeded, using the following canister ID: mc6ru-gyaaa-aaaar-qaaaq-cai


In future upgrades to ckBTC we can do something with these, and one thing that definitely would make sense is to let small amounts be transferred out such that they can be used to pay the cycles of these canisters.

I thought NNS canisters (including ckBTC) don’t need to pay for cycles.

Good question! The term “NNS Canister” is not entirely precise, I think it’s used for both canisters that run on system subnets, and for canisters that are controlled by the NNS.

  • if a canister runs on a system subnet (as shown here), they do not cost cycles.
  • a canister that is controlled by the NNS but does not run on a system subnet, the canister pays cycles as usual

The canisters of ckTESTBTC run on the new fiduciary subnet (pzp6e), so this canister does pay cycles. Even more so than on other subnets, because it’s a larger subnet. We plan on running the real ckBTC on the same subnet.


I’ve just learned about this bitcoin integration. So, I don’t know if it is possible to swap between BTC vs ICP through ckBTC.So, if it can, how can I do it pls? Thanks

You’ll have to go through exchanges to swap ckBTC to ICP. But AFAIK there’s no ckBTC for mainnet bitcoin yet, so you’ll have to be patient for some more time


Correct, ckBTC is still under development and not available yet.

While trading ICP for BTC and vice versa is already possible technically, DEXs do not support this trading pair yet (as far as I know).


I still think that the naming breakdown should be
ckBTC - “chain key Bitcoin” that makes updates on the Bitcoin ledger with “real” Bitcoin
wBTC - “wrapped Bitcoin” a standard naming convention for a token on another blockchain

So, an ICRC-1 token would be wBTC, which could be burned for ckBTC. Any blockchain can wrap Bitcoin, but ckBTC should describe what is uniquely possible on the IC - making updates natively on the Bitcoin blockchain


But what would ckBTC refer to exactly then? If it’s the token, it’s just BTC, so I think it would be misleading to name it anything other than BTC.

For naming the “wrapped” token, this was named in [Feedback Wanted] Wrapped Bitcoin Ledger on the Internet Computer, I would be a bit hesitant to change it so late in the process. Wrt wBTC, I think that has the downside that other tokens are already called wBTC, most notably wrapped BTC on ETH, so I would prefer a more unique name.


hello,i have a quastion,how to mint new tokens with ckbtc?

1 Like

ckBTC would refer to BTC that is securely held and transferred by a smart contract, rather than an individual’s wallet.

I think that using the name wBTC for wrapped tokens is actually a gesture of good faith to other communities, particularly Ethereum. It’s important to use like terminology where features are in fact similar, and using a ledger to trade new tokens that are backed by a balance of BTC is called wBTC in the rest of the crypto ecosystem

edit: I do see the issue where it may be hard to list IC wBTC on traditional exchanges. However, it does seem like there is a pattern of simply using the original ticker and associating the platform with a suffixed number Bitcoin [Polygon] (BTC) (BTC) Price Today, Value, Real-Time Charts & News

1 Like

Welcome to the forum @Damirbek1997! The real ckBTC is not live yet, but ckTESTBTC is live (which wraps testnet bitcoin). You can find the instructions on how to use that in an earlier post. We don’t have a nice font-end yet though, so it’s all on the command line for now.

But isn’t how the token is held irrelevant? An ICP is an ICP irrespective of whether I hold it in a ledger nano or the FE dapp via II right? Calling real bitcoin held by canisters ckBTC sounds a bit like calling ICP held via II something like iiICP.


There could be wrapped BTC on the IC without BTC integration, correct? Should such wrapped BTC not have a separate designation so as not to be confused with ckBTC which is a direct product of BTC integration?

1 Like

Thank you, I too am glad to be part of the internet community
I read your post about ckbtc canister, searched ckbtcTest repositories, didn’t find information about minting, is it possible to implement minting at all?

I’m not 100% sure i understand your question correctly. What I meant earlier is that you can follow my earlier post (which links to the README) to send testnet bitcoin to the ckTESTBTC minter, and the ckTESTBTC minter will in return mint new ckTESTBTC for you. Does that answer your question, or are you looking for something else?


Yea, call it BTC, because that is what it is. When you are on Binance you see BTC when it is BTC, and not binBTC.


I kind of agree with this. When looking at other blockchains (especially their explorers), wrapped Bitcoin is only labelled as Bitcoin (BTC), not Example Bitcoin (eBTC) or anything like that.

It would indeed be extremely nice if we just called it Bitcoin (BTC) and nothing more, but perhaps people could get confused? Then again, people don’t seem to be confused on other chains.