Author: Jian Shu

I. Rune Alpha

The reason Rune Alpha has gained popularity is mainly due to the highly discussed concept of "runes." The concept and origin of "runes" were introduced in previous tweets, and here is a brief introduction again.

The concept of "runes" was initially proposed by Casey and gained renewed attention due to BTC Core developer Luke's opposition to "inscriptions." The essential difference between "runes" and "inscriptions" is that "runes" are stored in UTXO, while "inscriptions" like BRC-20 based on Ordinals exist in the JSON text of the Bitcoin script's segregated witness data.

Although Rune Alpha claims to be "runes," according to the Rune Alpha white paper, it is a new inscription protocol built on version 0.11.1 of the ordinals protocol, which is not the same as the "runes" proposed by Casey. Therefore, Rune Alpha is not actually "runes"; it merely rides on the coattails of the "runes" hype.

However, whether it is true "runes" is not important; Rune Alpha has successfully capitalized on the hype. In the crypto space, you can have a bad reputation, but you absolutely cannot lack fame. The minting cost of the protocol's first token, $cook, is around a dozen U, and the current off-market price has risen to 400U, with no trading market launched yet.

II. CBRC-20

CBRC-20 is a high-efficiency meta-protocol standard proposal for fungible tokens on Bitcoin through Ordinals. By utilizing the new metadata and metaprotocol fields introduced in ord 0.10+ (which allow any attributes to be stored directly within the Inscription envelope), CBRC-20 maintains the same functional logic as the BRC-20 meta-protocol while reducing the cost of each inscription and simplifying the indexing process.

Since CBRC-20 is an upgraded version of BRC-20, what optimizations does it implement?

• Reduced inscription costs

Deploying, minting, or transferring any CBRC-20 token can be completed by simply inscribing the number "0" on the token. As a text file, the inscription cost is reduced by 10 times compared to other meta-protocol ordinal token standards.

• Simplified indexing

CBRC-20 provides a straightforward method to index the CBRC-20 meta-protocol state, as all information can be directly obtained from each inscription's envelope.

• Flexibility of MIME data

The CBRC-20 standard allows the use of any MIME data to deploy, mint, or transfer CBRC-20 tokens. For example, issuing instructions for the token requires only filling in "0," and the cost is reduced by 10 times compared to other Ordinals meta-protocols.

• Compatibility with higher versions of the Ordinals protocol

Unlike BRC-20, which is limited to the features of Ordinals version 0.9, CBRC-20 can leverage the latest features introduced in Ordinals version 0.10 and above.

Currently, the CBRC-20 team has not developed its own market but has cleverly enabled its tokens to go live on trading markets.

• One method is through RuneX, which directly lists inscriptions for SWAP;

• Another method is through a Tampermonkey script that modifies Unisat, forcing listings on Unisat. The transferred inscriptions are all cbrm collections, and the founder created a Tampermonkey plugin that can directly read inscription information on Unisat, allowing users to see exactly which inscription it is.

In addition to the two trading markets mentioned above, the community has spontaneously created a trading market for CBRC-20 tokens and has attached CBRC-20 tokens to BRC-20 tokens, using a "Trojan horse" method to list CBRC-20 tokens on Unisat. However, this method is experimental and does not guarantee asset security.

Recently, the founder initiated an OSMOSIS experiment and deployed the first meta-meta-protocol inscription, $SYMM. How do we understand "meta-protocol" and "cross-indexing"?

"Meta-protocol" is a term used by the Ordinals community to describe interactive "protocols." It formalizes off-chain indexing of on-chain information (such as BRC-20, SNS, Bitmap, etc.).

Due to the non-overlapping nature of the two BRC/CBRC meta-protocols, it is possible to inscribe once and simultaneously complete the deployment/minting/transferring operations of both meta-protocols. If a holder possesses both, then the $SYMM in hand is "valid." The following image shows a dual-purpose $SYMM inscription, with the left image being the inscription.

Overall, CBRC-20 is like a "Trojan horse," using the inscription method of CBRC-20 to simultaneously inscribe multiple protocol inscriptions, thereby conducting a certain degree of "vampire attack" on other protocols. Just like the creator often tweets about Trojan horses, CBRC-20 has achieved "backdoor listing."

III. BTNS

Broadcast Token Naming System (BTNS) is an ecosystem built on the BTC main chain by one of the early BTC holders and developers, @jdogresorg. Its basic concept is to transmit additional broadcast signals with each BTC transaction, recording this data on the blockchain as a basis, and using ledger indexing to enable the issuance of native on-chain asset tokens and NFTs for BTC.

BTNS-420 is a token protocol standard built by @jdogresorg based on BTNS, integrating various ecological features such as asset issuance and transfer, making the concept of BTNS possible.

What are the differences between BTNS tokens and inscriptions/runes?

• Firstly, BTNS ecological token assets do not alter or occupy BTC, making it more aligned with the ecological direction of BTC. Inscriptions and runes rely on BTC itself for storage, which leads to significant BTC token occupation and resource waste. Asset minting based on broadcasting is more open and fair; although the indexing is constructed by @jdogresorg, all broadcast data follows BTC transaction information for block storage, making it completely transparent and publicly queryable. The existence of indexing is more about limiting and tracking the total amount of assets rather than a centralized approach where anyone can index at will.
• BTNS has no potential risks, as it is fully open-source, and all infrastructure development is based on the characteristics and functions of BTC itself, without major controversial discussions.

What value does BTNS bring?

• BTNS has transformed the issuance of assets based on the BTC main chain from impossible to possible, fully relying on the characteristics of BTC itself. Its issuance allows for the construction of all assets without consuming BTC. With further improvements, it is highly likely to turn BTC into a fully playable, environmentally friendly mainstream ecological chain (note that it is an ecological chain, not just a value coin).
• The recent inscription and rune revolution has led to congestion issues on BTC. The author believes that if BTNS is introduced to build the ecosystem, its framework and upgraded token protocol allow for airdrops, fair indexing (referring to specified or particular instruction indexing), etc., making asset acquisition no longer reliant on competition, but rather a more equitable choice of acquisition methods, such as airdrops to registered addresses, specified block limits, or even low gas transaction indexing.

According to community reports, @jdogresorg is currently on vacation and has paused development work. From his recent Twitter updates, this indeed seems to be the case. Therefore, the market that was supposed to be developed has not made any progress.

Conclusion

The above is an introduction to the recent new Bitcoin protocols, among which Rune Alpha and CBRC-20 have not deviated from the concept of inscriptions, both being asset issuance methods based on Ordinals. However, CBRC-20 has done better in terms of innovation, making it possible to mint multiple protocol inscriptions simultaneously. BTNS is conceptually broader than the other two; BTNS belongs to the category of meta-protocols, while Rune Alpha and CBRC-20 are both "layer two protocols" (referring to standards or protocols developed based on the original Ordinals protocol). Moreover, BTNS, in the form of "broadcasting," allows for asset issuance on Bitcoin without occupying Bitcoin itself (this does not evaluate the pros and cons of occupation).