A Bitcoin Cash improvement proposal (CHIP) that aims to activate simple native tokens in May 2023.
This refers to tokens that are hardcoded into the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, similar to the native currency BCH. Token checks and balances are implemented in the same manner as BCH checks and balances are enforced, with the addition of a few new "buttons" to regulate token supply and metadata.
Because no new address format is necessary and a single address can get several tokens, it is simple to utilize.
Because token transactions are structured in the same way as BCH transactions, upgrading wallets and middleware is simple.
It's simple to read the blockchain and create databases to keep track of token statistics.
Compatible with both the 0-conf and SPV wallets.
The "big O" scaling function remains intact.
Node resources are inexpensive, almost as cheap as BCH. Consider these to be more powerful BCH outputs.
Faster than BCH, more secure than BCH, and virtually as inexpensive to trade.
Through the current BCH transaction signature mechanism, atomic swaps and token CashFusion are feasible.
Because of this, it may be locked with any Bitcoin Cash Script.
Other improvements may be beneficial to them (Introspection and PMv3).
We'll start with an overview of how Bitcoin Cash transactions function. Consider BCH to be gold sand in transparent bags, with each grain representing one satoshi. Combination locks, the most common sort of lock known as an address, are used to secure the bag ties. Transaction outputs are the bags themselves. We tell the blockchain to repackage the gold sand into new bags with new locks when we perform a transaction. The blockchain will refuse to pack too small amounts of sand - a restriction known as the dust limit - and will take some sand as payment for this repackaging service. But how is this synthetic sand manufactured in the first place? If certain conditions are satisfied, the blockchain will create it on demand. You offer unlocked luggage and explain your desires like you would in any other transaction. To produce a token, all you have to do is give just enough BCH to cover the charge and fill the little BCH bag that comes with the token bag. The first bag of new color will be a unique, randomly allocated special grain. You must give token sand to the blockchain in order to build it.
We demonstrated the three major token operations: genesis, minting, and token transfer.
Remember that tokens are dual-currency outputs that always contain a minimum quantity of BCH and some token amount. Users can destroy all of their token packets and regain pure BCH if a token becomes worthless.
The token supply will be limited indefinitely if the special grain is thrown away (burned).
I believe we are entering an era when everything is tokenized. It all started with Ethereum, and it's only gotten better since then. Supporting tokens on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain allows BCH to capture a little portion of the value created by each token resident, resulting in a small increase in BCH demand. Who knows if it will add up to something substantial. Why don't we hedge our bets?
SLP has an architectural issue in which a middleware failure can result in a wallet's entire loss of money. It's no surprise it never really took off when other blockchains have user-friendly solutions that don't have this issue. SLP, on the other hand, was beneficial in one way: it demonstrated that there is a desire in having tokens on Bitcoin Cash!
We obtain a fully functional BCH-powered smart contract machine that can compete in the DeFi market. It's yet a new blockchain that will necessitate its own infrastructure.
BCH will be adopted regardless of which solution becomes popular. The success of one does not exclude the success of the other, and BCH would benefit if both found applications.
Plus, they're not aiming for the same target. Native tokens should be extremely useful for transparent CeFi, which is backed by a decentralized, PoW-secured blockchain Like Bitcoin!
It scales with only a little amount of fixed data and effort each BCH UTXO holding a token.
Consider a pure BCH transaction with 10 BCH bags coming in and 5 BCH bags going out. 15 bags must be weighed, 10 locks must be checked, and 5 new locks must be created by the blockchain.
It would take 15 pairs of tokens to visit 15 pairs of bags, but it would still have to check the same 10 locks and build 5 new ones. The node only weights the BCH amount in each bag once, and the token amount once. Because it's only basic mathematics when programmed, the weighing function is incredibly inexpensive.
Every UTXO token contains some BCH. A token can be burnt and BCH retrieved if it becomes a zombie.
What do you think? It rises in direct proportion to the number of locks placed on luggage; nothing else changes. As the number of users grows, so does the number of locks. Remember, each lock must always have a little BCH bag connected, so... if it increases, that'll be a wonderful issue to have?
