While the Bitcoin integration enables canisters to hold and transfer Bitcoin, transactions are still slow and costly because they happen on the Bitcoin blockchain. In order to enable fast and cheap transactions, the goal is to develop a wrapped Bitcoin ledger running on the Internet Computer.
Status
The feature is currently being scoped.
What you can do to help
Ask questions
Propose ideas
Key people involved
Manu Drijvers (@Manu), Mario Pastorelli (@mariop), Thomas Locher (@THLO)
Timelines
The tentative plan is to release the wrapped Bitcoin ledger shortly after the launch of the Bitcoin integration on mainnet at the end of Q1, 2022.
The scope of this feature is to provide a new ledger canister that provides wrapped Bitcoin functionality. Specifically, this ledger will make it possible to (1) trade real Bitcoin for wrapped Bitcoin directly on the Internet Computer, (2) transfer wrapped Bitcoin cheaply at the speed of the Internet Computer, and (3) convert wrapped Bitcoin back to real Bitcoin.
A crucial advantage compared to existing wrapped Bitcoin solutions is that no trusted third parties are involved because the ledger offers the required custodial service itself. Moreover, given the high efficiency of the Internet Computer, transfers will be fast and only incur a minimal fee.
It is important to note that this will be but one such ledger canister and the community is welcome to provide their own ledgers with similar or different design goals.
The reason for developing such a ledger ourselves is twofold. First, we would like to have this functionality in place as soon as possible so that developers can start building (wrapped) Bitcoin smart contracts shortly after the Bitcoin integration is launched. Second, we would like to offer our ledger as a well-tested sample project to showcase the power of the Bitcoin integration, which can be used as inspiration for the development of other ledger canisters.
I was thinking about the direct integration of IC with other networks recently. What I think at the moment is that we certainly need a canister that will wrap original tokens, so we can use ICâs full potential - DeFi in particular. But wouldnât we introduce middlemen if we allow developers to build their own canisters - which in fact will build bridges? I think that new exploit opportunities will arise.
What I think is we should create a DAO controlled, open sourced canister that will work in fact as a bridge, but nicely and thoroughly built and maintained by the IC community. This approach would be very limitative, but trustworthy.
On the other hand I see lots of use cases and potential that can be unleashed if we all start building our solutions.
My suggestion is, if ICP want to introduce âwrappedâ asset technology that is âdifferentâ than current classical wrapped asset (that use bridge / validator / trusted third party), better to use new keyword to avoid confusion to the people. For ex. enclosed-bitcoin, enveloped-bitcoin, capsulated-bitcoin , etc.
This is exactly what we have in mind. So instead of needing to trust some group of entities to do the âwrappingâ, this open source smart contract would hold real BTC (by using the direct BTC integration) and issue some âwrappedâ BTC, which will be a token that lives on the IC and can therefore be traded very quickly.
I assume this ledger will follow the standard of the SNS ledger standard being created?
@lastmjs that currently looks like the most logical option to me, wdyt?
My suggestion is, if ICP want to introduce âwrappedâ asset technology that is âdifferentâ than current classical wrapped asset (that use bridge / validator / trusted third party), better to use new keyword to avoid confusion to the people. For ex. enclosed-bitcoin, enveloped-bitcoin, capsulated-bitcoin , etc.
@ajismyid Great suggestion, I agree that the term âwrappedâ is a bit loaded by now and we should make the difference clear. Thanks!
I agree with both of these points. Follow the ICP/SNS ledger standard, and a new name/terminology that is more accurate could be an excellent improvement in education and adoption
As long as the formula xBitcoin is followed, it will be associated with wrapped BTC. Perhaps a change of name itself, say Bitquoin BTQ. A quoin is an architectural term for the corner of a building or the stone wrapping around a corner. So, Bitquoin is Bitcoin that has figuratively turned a corner.
I think we can name it Satoshi, 1) its real bitcoin 2) as far as i know on ICP we doesnât need decimals, and with this approach when you trade 1 BTC to canister you will get 100,000,000 Satoshi and vice versa.
I suggested an idea for this in another thread here: Earth Bitcoin - An idea for BTC integration, but a powerful narrative given the current market for both Bitcoin and our global society/environment would be to call this âeBTCâ.
eBTC is energy efficient and solves the massive waste of energy that the Bitcoin networks are consuming.
We could introduce a small fee which would go towards keeping the canister alive and potentially purchasing carbon assets to make Bitcoin 100% carbon neutral (or positive).
An eBTC DAO could govern this canister as well to focus on social impact causes and change the incentives of the crypto industry from greed/hoarding to creating more positive values for society.
Since the original post weâve created a new design for what this could look like, and also announced a new initiative to build a decentralized social network which will be ready post-bitcoin integration to decentralize social networks which could potentially be used to govern the DAO.
Another suggestion I have is to make the ratio such that the total supply of eBTC would be 7.7B, this would reduce the price per eBTC down to the $100 range and make it much more attractive for retail to hold and participate in. From experience, this stuff makes quite a bit of a difference in adoption.
âBTC or i-BTC ? (derived from infinite-BTC, ICP â BTC)
Another idea is Hyperloop Bitcoin, (the idea is from highspeed transportation proposed by elon musk)
