RGB and Taro, both of which are tokens based on Bitcoin, are taking two different development approaches
RGB, with its ambitions as a smart contracting layer on top of bitcoin (i.e. not just for tokens), has a robust on-chain protocol for executing off-chain state transitions. Careful design has resulted in superior privacy, on-chain scalability, and versatility at the expense of conceptual complexity. On the other hand, Taro appears to be more focused on off-chain usage, such as the Lightning Network, specifying methods for multi-hop payments and token exchanges. However, among the practical shortcuts Taro has taken in favor of conceptual simplicity is neglecting to standardize at least one fundamental building block of its on-chain protocol.
<figcaption><em>Quelle</em></figcaption> </figure><p>Da Taro-Vermögenswerte mit einem On-Chain-UTXO gespeichert werden, können Taro-Transaktionen theoretisch auf zwei Arten konstruiert werden: eine, bei der der Absender Bitcoin für die Ausgabe des Empfängers zahlt, und die andere, bei der der Empfänger seinen eigenen Input beisteuert, um selbst dafür zu bezahlen. Der erstere Fall ist einfacher, aber der Absender verschenkt effektiv etwas Bitcoin; Letzteres kann präziser sein, erfordert jedoch eine Interaktion zwischen Sender und Empfänger, um die Transaktion zu erstellen. Sofern diese Methoden und ihre Auswahl nicht standardisiert sind, ist die Wallet-Interoperabilität ein Wunschtraum.
Perhaps Taro’s reluctance to standardize such a basic component can be explained by his development approach. Overall, while RGB is being developed quite transparently, Lightning Labs seems to be keeping more control over its project in Taro, possibly to take a more iterative, feedback-based approach to getting its product to market.
Indeed, once a protocol is in widespread use, it is difficult to update or replace it without breaking interoperability. However, this is not necessarily the case if your implementation is the only one. Lightning Labs may reserve its ability to rapidly iterate by intentionally postponing the protocol’s widespread adoption. I get that impression from the gap in standardization mentioned above, as well as the fact that Lightning Labs is planning to ship its Taro wallet with LND, its Lightning node implementation with more than 90% market share.
It’s certainly possible that Lightning Labs’ approach to bringing tokens to Lightning will be more successful. But if it doesn’t eventually relinquish its dominant role, Taro risks becoming little more than an LNDAPI to become. It’s not inconceivable to me that Taro will remain an LND-specific feature.
Will Lightning Token Survive?
As a semi-paranoid bitcoiner, I have to wonder if the proliferation of tokens on bitcoin will have negative consequences for the Lightning Network or bitcoin itself. Concerns about the latter are corroborated by Circle’s (USDC’s issuer) ability to influence users during a potential contentious Ethereum hard fork, I would like to highlight a specific area of concern regarding Lightning.
As mentioned, Taro’s approach, if continued, will result in increased utility of LND through the use of the included Taro wallet compared to other implementations. This can potentially further cement LND’s dominant position in the node implementation landscape. To keep Lightning decentralized, it’s preferable to spread users more evenly across multiple implementations so that even the most popular implementation can’t easily implement protocol changes without consequences for their users.
Source: Crypto News Deutsch