Benchmark Proposal for Bitcoin's Native Layer 2 Network: Establishing Community Standards for Authenticity and Trust

Author: Kevin (@kevinliub)
It all started with an unplanned coffee chat------which ultimately became the starting point of a mission. GOAT Network's Chief Economist Redouane sat down with CIO Eric and CTO Stephen, both staunch believers in Bitcoin. The conversation began with complaints about the confusing use of the term "Layer 2." It seems that everyone now claims to be a Bitcoin Layer 2, but in reality, most projects do not adhere to the core spirit of Bitcoin. They label themselves as "Bitcoin L2" for marketing purposes, while relying on federated multi-signatures, external consensus mechanisms, or highly trusted architectures underneath. This has diluted and misused the term "Bitcoin L2."
Thus, over cup after cup of cold coffee, a mission gradually took shape: we need to define what truly qualifies as a "Bitcoin-native Layer 2" network. They did not want to write a specification limited to technical routes, but rather establish a principle-based standard------a strict guideline built on Bitcoin's values. This is the starting point of this declaration.
This proposal establishes two levels of standards:

I. Core Must-Haves

Without these conditions, a project cannot claim to be a Bitcoin-native Layer 2.

1. Trustless settlement on the Bitcoin mainnet Bitcoin-native L2 must frequently anchor state to the Bitcoin mainnet------ideally with every block, at least once every few hours. Settlement must include validity proofs (such as ZK proofs) and state submissions, not just Merkle roots or signatures. Delayed settlements severely undermine user security and system trust.
2. Dispute resolution must anchor to the Bitcoin mainnet In the event of fraud or malicious behavior, users must be able to challenge directly on the Bitcoin mainnet. Reliance on federated arbitration, MPC, multi-signature committees, or centralized approvals is not allowed. The final ruling must be enforced by Bitcoin miners, not off-chain intermediaries.
3. Permissionless forced exit mechanism Users must be able to unilaterally exit the system at any time. Even if all Sequencer nodes disappear, the exit channel must remain open. No custodians, no approval processes required.
4. Proof-based trust-minimized bridging mechanism Bridges must be non-custodial and enforceable on Bitcoin through proofs. Designed based on honest assumptions of 1-of-n or 0-of-n, completely independent of multi-signatures, federated systems, or human governance. BTC should never be exposed to third-party trust.
5. Continuous online and resilience L2 networks must remain operational in the event of node failures, censorship, or attacks. This should be achieved through a decentralized Sequencer architecture. All roles should have open participation or be easily replaceable, and the system must have self-recovery capabilities.

II. Nice-to-Haves

These features are crucial for scalability and user experience but cannot replace core trustworthiness.

1. Fast and efficient exit mechanism The standard exit process should be completed within hours, not days. In case of disputes, the system should also respond quickly and resolve challenges.
2. Gas mechanism priced in native BTC Using BTC (instead of bridged ETH or altcoins) as the gas asset enhances trust and ecological consistency.
3. Economic incentive mechanism for honest behavior Roles such as Sequencer, Prover, Challenger, etc., should be rewarded for honest operations. Cheating should be punished (e.g., staked assets being slashed).

The Ethereum L2 ecosystem thrives because the community has gradually reached a consensus on the definition of Rollups (such as OP Rollup and ZK Rollup specifications). Similarly, Bitcoin-native Layer 2 networks need to coalesce around a set of high-integrity common standards.
If a system cannot achieve the following:

• Frequently anchor to the Bitcoin mainnet,
• Allow users to challenge fraud on the mainnet,
• Operate transparently and minimize trust dependencies,

then it is not a Bitcoin-native Layer 2. It is merely a sidechain masquerading under a new name.
These principles form a set of "living standards"------born from dissatisfaction, refined through collaboration, and driven by the spirit of Bitcoin. Some existing systems are already very close to these standards, such as Lightning, which meets several of them, and ZK Rollup is also making gradual progress. However, this standard does not favor any technical route; it is technology-neutral. As long as your Rollup, channel, or bridge meets this standard, it qualifies; if not, no amount of marketing will help.
This is an invitation: to all builders, investors, and users.
Let us together defend the integrity of the term "Bitcoin Layer 2." Establish clear, principled boundaries, and do not disguise centralized systems as L2. Honesty is fundamental; if you are building a service or sidechain, please state the truth directly.
As Redouane, Eric, and Stephen realized that day, the future path has two directions: one is for "Layer 2" to become an empty brand, easily labeled by any system; the other is to turn it into a commitment, a badge representing fairness and trust. We choose the latter.
Bitcoin has earned people's trust, and its scaling layers must also be worthy of that trust. Let us define Layer 2 by "truth" rather than "trends," and together build a future that Bitcoin deserves.