Crypto
Bitcoin Can Save Our Ghost Money Financial System
This is an opinion editorial by Ansel Lindner, an economist, author, investor, Bitcoin specialist and host of “Fed Watch.”
Ghost money has a long history but only recently became part of the bitcoin vernacular via premier eurodollar expert, and bitcoin skeptic, Jeff Snider, Chief Strategist at Atlas Financial. We’ve interviewed him twice for the Bitcoin Magazine podcast “Fed Watch” — you can listen here and here, where we talked about some of these topics.
In this post, I will define the concept of ghost money, discuss the eurodollar and bitcoin as ghost money, examine currency shortages and their role in monetary evolution, and finally, place bitcoin in its place among currencies.
What Is Ghost Money?
Ghost money is an abstracted ideal currency unit, used primarily as a unit of account and medium of exchange, but whose store-of-value function is a derivative of a base money. Other terms for ghost money include: political money, quasi-money, imaginary money, moneta numeraria or money of account.
To many economic historians the most famous era of ghost money is the Bank of Amsterdam starting in the early 17th century. It was a full reserve bank, used double-entry bookkeeping (shared ledgers) for transactions, and redeemed balances at a fixed amount of silver. Ghost money existed on their books, and the money in their vaults.
The financial innovation of an abstracted ideal currency unit evolved because coins are never the same weight or fineness. Coins in circulation tended to get worn quickly, dented or clipped and even if the coins were in mint condition, sovereigns tended to debase the coins on a regular basis (by the year 1450, European coins only had 5% silver content). Ghost money is a currency abstraction based on a fixed measurement of a money (its store-of-value), but does not need to reference actual coins in circulation, just an official measurement.
To put it in terms Bitcoiners are familiar with, this layer of abstraction gave commodity money new security properties and payment features.
Security wise, ghost money avoids the problem of debasement to a degree (we could call this debasement resistance), because the unit-of-account is a fixed weight and fineness set by a bank, not the sovereign. For example, the Bank of Amsterdam set the guilder at 10.16 g fine silver in 1618. Coins in circulation at the time tended to differ widely, coming from all over Europe. There were even direct attacks on banks in the form of flooding the local economy with debased coins, as happened in the 1630s with the importation of coins of less silver content from Spanish Netherlands north to Amsterdam.
Ghost money also allows new features, like the ability to transact over long distances, in large sums, carrying only a letter, greatly reducing transaction costs. It also allowed longer-term bonds at lower interest rates because the unit-of-account is more stable. The pricing of shares (a new innovation at the time), also could be valued in stable currency units.
In general, ghost money leads to thinking of value in a stable abstract unit. This has far reaching effects that are hard to overstate when it comes to large long-term investments, like massive infrastructure projects, that just so happened to get going in the preindustrial era as well. Eventually, the thinking in stable abstract currency units would lead to all the financial and banking innovation we see today.
Ghost money is rightly thought of as a derivative to the money itself, one which replaced the insecure aspects of the physical coins, without getting rid of the underlying form of money. It would more properly be called “ghost currency,” because it is simply a stable derivative, an idealized currency, used for accounting.
Everything has a trade off, and ghost money is no exception. Abstracting the currency away provided debasement resistance from the sovereign, but it also enabled the banks to more easily create credit denominated in that idealized unit (fractional reserve lending), shifting the money printing task from sovereigns to banks. Expanding credit in the private sector according to market desires can lead to economic booms, but the trade off is the following bust.
Currency Shortages
In an article from Jeff Snider, he pairs the use of ghost money with the concept of monetary shortage to explain the rise of modern banking, and the beginning of the evolutionary process toward the current eurodollar financial system and even bitcoin.
“Any money-of-account [ghost money] alternative is the resourceful yet natural human response to these specific conditions.”
He sees ghost money as a natural market-driven practice, with a primary driving force being monetary shortage. Ghost money can add elasticity to the money supply as I stated above through credit expansion. He points to the 15th century’s Great Bullion Famine and the 1930’s Great Depression as two very important epochs in ghost money’s history. These were periods of inelasticity in the supply of currency, which incentivized efforts to search out new supplies via financial innovation (ghost money) or searching for new sources of money itself (silver and gold in the Age of Exploration and the eurodollar credit expansion in the 1950s and 1960s).
More than anything, though, what might have driven money-of-account forward to its preeminent position was something called the Great Bullion Famine. Just as the 20th century seemed to pivot in one direction then the other, from the deflationary money shortages of the Great Depression to decades later the overwhelming monetary changes underneath the Great Inflation, so, too, did Medieval economics suffer one to then pivot into its opposite.
Ghost money’s Golden Age, forgive the pun, coincided with the Bullion Famine. Quasi-money is often one solution to inelasticity; commercial pressures are not easily surrendered to something like a lack of medium of exchange. People want to do business because business, not money, is real wealth.
“The role of money, separated from any store of value desire, is nothing more than to facilitate such business[.]” — Jeff Snider
Snider frames ghost money as a market tool that happens to also provide a route to increasing the elasticity of money in times of currency shortage. In other words, when the supply of money does not expand at a sufficient rate, the ensuing economic difficulties will drive people to find ways to expand that money supply, and ghost money is a ready-made solution via fractional reserve.
Snider’s views put him squarely in the monetarist camp, along with Milton Friedman and others. They see in “the quantity of money the major source of economic activity and its disruptions.” Inelasticity is both the primary culprit of depression and the primary mover of financial innovation.
The Eurodollar As Ghost Money
“Necessity, basically, the mother of invention even when it comes to money […]But if the eurodollar was the private (global) economy’s response to restrictive gold, what then of the eurodollar’s post-August 2007 restrictions upon the very same? Where’s the ghost money of the 21st century to replace the preeminent ghosts of the 20th?” — Jeff Snider
Snider frames the eurodollar system as a natural innovation response to the inelasticity that prevailed in the Great Depression. In the 1950’s when Robert Triffin began speaking about this paradox, the market was busy solving it through ghost money and credit. The eurodollar system is simply a network of double-entry bookkeeping and balance sheets, using the global idealized currency unit at the time, U.S. dollars (backed by $35/oz of gold).
But is the eurodollar in its current form, still ghost money? No — it is credit-based money, but it looks almost identical.
Remember, ghost money is an idealized unit of money (in the past it was silver or gold). Credit is also denominated an idealized unit-of-account, a second order derivative, if you will. Through the dominance of ghost money, thinking in an abstract currency unit became common, and the psychology of the market changed to center around this new financial tool.
The difference between the current eurodollar, which is a pure credit-based system, and credit in a ghost money system is found in the store-of-value function. Ghost money’s store of value is from a base money (silver or gold or bitcoin). The eurodollar today, on the other hand, is divorced from base money completely, and backed by something new. A dollar today is an idealized measurement of debt denominated in dollars. It’s a circular, self-referential definition in the place of base money:
“Money-of-account [ghost money] was one such alternative which also blurred the lines between money and credit; in one sense, using ledgers to settle transactions even between merchants was under the strictest definition credit rather than a monetary substitute. But that was the case only insofar as eventually this paper IOU would have to be disposed of by bullion or specie.
Subprime mortgages and their ancient equivalents became possible where specie was in overabundance, yet perhaps counterintuitively far less likely if not completely impractical using only ghosts untethered to hard money.” — Jeff Snider
In other words, untethering ghost money from its hard money can simulate the overabundance of money. We are wrong though to continue to call this untethered money, ghost money. What is it a ghost of? Once you remove the store-of-value/hard-money tether, it is now a new form of money.
I also must add that if untethered ghosts can simulate overabundance of currency, it can also simulate a currency shortage at the other extreme, which is exactly what we see today.
The eurodollar started out as ghost money until 1971 when the gold peg was severed, either by market evolution or official declaration. It became a new form of money, pure credit-based money.
Is Bitcoin Ghost Money?
Snider stated that “quasi-money is often one solution to inelasticity,” not that all solutions to inelasticity are quasi-money. Yet, that is what he’s doing when he extrapolates that because bitcoin is providing new monetary liquidity in a time of eurodollar shortage, that bitcoin is ghost money.
Currency shortages can be solved by introducing a whole new money, and as the old money suffers from shortage, the new money, with an all-new store-of-value anchor, can become the primary unit-of-account. This is not a ghost money process, it’s a money replacement process, something the Monetarists’ model cannot contend with.
“This forms the basic argument of so-called Bitcoin maximalists who see particularly the Federal Reserve but really all central banks as having set loose to ‘money printing’ excesses. They’re killing their currencies by creating too much, and cryptos are the offered antidote to ‘devaluation.’ No.It is, point of fact, the opposite.
Just like the bullion famine, what crypto enthusiasts of all kinds are reacting to — and basing their buying of digital currencies on — is the central bank response to an otherwise severe and constraining monetary shortage.” — Jeff Snider
Snider is right. I have to give him props on opening a lot of people’s eyes on this. We do have deflationary pressures today, but bitcoin is a hedge against inflation and deflation as a counterparty-free asset. It just so happens the overriding force in the economic environment today is a deflationary pressure of a credit collapse, which simulates currency shortage. While more quantity but increasingly less productive debt is money printing, meaning there is inflation, it also increases the debt burden relative to circulating currency. It creates a debt-to-income problem that manifests as a monetary shortage.
“Digital ghost money for a new age of shortfalls.” — Jeff Snider
Snider sees bitcoin as a new ghost money, where I see new money. Ghost money is no threat to replace the monetary standard, because it is a derivative of that standard, like stablecoins. U.S. dollar stablecoins will not replace U.S. dollars. They are a perfect example of ghost money.
As Snider said above, quasi-money (ghost money) is only one solution to a currency shortage, yet he labels all solutions as ghost money regardless of makeup.
Snider offers evidence in the form of his eurodollar cycles and their timing with bitcoin cycles.
“In 2017’s bitcoin bubble, exactly the same. Its price in dollars went parabolic along with a clear bubble in digital offshoots, now-forgotten ICO’s, the frenzy never lasted long because the premise behind its price surge was entirely faulty. Once the dollar instead caught its Euro$ #4 bid, renewed acute shortage, bitcoin’s price sunk like a rock.” — Jeff Snider
They do match pretty well with bitcoin tops. Below is the best chart I could find of his with dates. However, many of his other charts have different dates for these cycles.
Pretty convincing, but it shouldn’t be a surprise — demand for bitcoin is a part of the larger global market for money. Bitcoiners would definitely agree. When dollar supply is tight during these eurodollar events, bitcoin loses a bid. However, if bitcoin truly were just a ghost money derivative of the eurodollar, it would not set higher highs and higher lows each cycle.
The reason bitcoin can set those new highs each time is because bitcoin is a new money, and is slowly becoming entrenched next to the eurodollar not as a ghost money of it.
Turning back to the Great Bullion Famine, it was followed by the explosion of ghost money, but what followed that expansion is even more interesting. What happened in the 18th century in regards to ghost money and new money? Britain went to a gold standard in 1717 (officially in 1819). It changed money from which the store-of-value function was derived.
The gold guinea (7.6885 grams of fine gold) was not a new ghost money. As I argued above, the eurodollar itself, initially a response to the currency shortage in the first half of the 20th century, evolved eventually into a new store-of-value in a pure credit-based money.
But what if we bring Snider’s position full circle, when he claims that the eurodollar is still ghost money today, a position gold bugs have argued for years. What if we are still on a quasi-gold standard, because central banks hold most of the gold. (Ron Paul famously asked Ben Bernanke why the Federal Reserve held gold if it was demonetized. His response, “it’s tradition, long-term tradition.”)
This interpretation of the current eurodollar system would then make it a ghost of a ghost, ultimately based on the same store of value. It would also make the current incarnation of the eurodollar just the end-phase of another ghost money experiment, ready to be replaced by a new money, the same way the British gold standard replaced the international silver standard.
Either way you take it, that the current eurodollar is a new money because it is a pure credit-based money, or that it is the ghost of a ghost still connected psychologically to a gold standard, both these positions support one conclusion. The ultimate end of the process Snider outlines — starting from a currency shortage, to dealing with inelasticity through ghost money, and finally back to economic health — is a new form of money.
Bitcoin is a new store of value to undergird the financial system as it desperately tries to throw off the currency shortage restraints at the end of an epic global credit cycle. Bitcoin is not a ghost of the old, it is the unconstrained new.
This is a guest post by Ansel Lindner. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
El Salvador’s Minister of the Economy Maria Luisa Hayem Brevé submitted a digital assets issuance bill to the country’s legislative assembly, paving the way for the launch of its bitcoin-backed “volcano” bonds.
First announced one year ago today, the pioneering initiative seeks to attract capital and investors to El Salvador. It was revealed at the time the plans to issue $1 billion in bonds on the Liquid Network, a federated Bitcoin sidechain, with the proceedings of the bonds being split between a $500 million direct allocation to bitcoin and an investment of the same amount in building out energy and bitcoin mining infrastructure in the region.
A sidechain is an independent blockchain that runs parallel to another blockchain, allowing for tokens from that blockchain to be used securely in the sidechain while abiding by a different set of rules, performance requirements, and security mechanisms. Liquid is a sidechain of Bitcoin that allows bitcoin to flow between the Liquid and Bitcoin networks with a two-way peg. A representation of bitcoin used in the Liquid network is referred to as L-BTC. Its verifiably equivalent amount of BTC is managed and secured by the network’s members, called functionaries.
“Digital securities law will enable El Salvador to be the financial center of central and south America,” wrote Paolo Ardoino, CTO of cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex, on Twitter.
Bitfinex is set to be granted a license in order to be able to process and list the bond issuance in El Salvador.
The bonds will pay a 6.5% yield and enable fast-tracked citizenship for investors. The government will share half the additional gains with investors as a Bitcoin Dividend once the original $500 million has been monetized. These dividends will be dispersed annually using Blockstream’s asset management platform.
The act of submitting the bill, which was hinted at earlier this year, kickstarts the first major milestone before the bonds can see the light of day. The next is getting it approved, which is expected to happen before Christmas, a source close to President Nayib Bukele told Bitcoin Magazine. The bill was submitted on November 17 and presented to the country’s Congress today. It is embedded in full below.
This is an opinion editorial by Joakim Book, a Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, contributor and copy editor for Bitcoin Magazine and a writer on all things money and financial history.
I don’t.
That’s it. That’s the article.
In all sincerity, that is the full message: Just don’t do it. It’s not worth it.
You’re not an excited teenager anymore, in desperate need of bragging credits or trying out your newfound wisdom. You’re not a preaching priestess with lost souls to save right before some imminent arrival of the day of reckoning. We have time.
Instead: just leave people alone. Seriously. They came to Thanksgiving dinner to relax and rejoice with family, laugh, tell stories and zone out for a day — not to be ambushed with what to them will sound like a deranged rant in some obscure topic they couldn’t care less about. Even if it’s the monetary system, which nobody understands anyway.
Get real.
If you’re not convinced of this Dale Carnegie-esque social approach, and you still naively think that your meager words in between bites can change anybody’s view on anything, here are some more serious reasons for why you don’t talk to friends and family about Bitcoin the protocol — but most certainly not bitcoin, the asset:
- Your family and friends don’t want to hear it. Move on.
- For op-sec reasons, you don’t want to draw unnecessary attention to the fact that you probably have a decent bitcoin stack. Hopefully, family and close friends should be safe enough to confide in, but people talk and that gossip can only hurt you.
- People find bitcoin interesting only when they’re ready to; everyone gets the price they deserve. Like Gigi says in “21 Lessons:”
“Bitcoin will be understood by you as soon as you are ready, and I also believe that the first fractions of a bitcoin will find you as soon as you are ready to receive them. In essence, everyone will get ₿itcoin at exactly the right time.”
It’s highly unlikely that your uncle or mother-in-law just happens to be at that stage, just when you’re about to sit down for dinner.
- Unless you can claim youth, old age or extreme poverty, there are very few people who genuinely haven’t heard of bitcoin. That means your evangelizing wouldn’t be preaching to lost, ignorant souls ready to be saved but the tired, huddled and jaded masses who could care less about the discovery that will change their societies more than the internal combustion engine, internet and Big Government combined. Big deal.
- What is the case, however, is that everyone in your prospective audience has already had a couple of touchpoints and rejected bitcoin for this or that standard FUD. It’s a scam; seems weird; it’s dead; let’s trust the central bankers, who have our best interest at heart.
No amount of FUD busting changes that impression, because nobody holds uninformed and fringe convictions for rational reasons, reasons that can be flipped by your enthusiastic arguments in-between wiping off cranberry sauce and grabbing another turkey slice. - It really is bad form to talk about money — and bitcoin is the best money there is. Be classy.
Now, I’m not saying to never ever talk about Bitcoin. We love to talk Bitcoin — that’s why we go to meetups, join Twitter Spaces, write, code, run nodes, listen to podcasts, attend conferences. People there get something about this monetary rebellion and have opted in to be part of it. Your unsuspecting family members have not; ambushing them with the wonders of multisig, the magically fast Lightning transactions or how they too really need to get on this hype train, like, yesterday, is unlikely to go down well.
However, if in the post-dinner lull on the porch someone comes to you one-on-one, whisky in hand and of an inquisitive mind, that’s a very different story. That’s personal rather than public, and it’s without the time constraints that so usually trouble us. It involves clarifying questions or doubts for somebody who is both expressively curious about the topic and available for the talk. That’s rare — cherish it, and nurture it.
Last year I wrote something about the proper role of political conversations in social settings. Since November was also election month, it’s appropriate to cite here:
“Politics, I’m starting to believe, best belongs in the closet — rebranded and brought out for the specific occasion. Or perhaps the bedroom, with those you most trust, love, and respect. Not in public, not with strangers, not with friends, and most certainly not with other people in your community. Purge it from your being as much as you possibly could, and refuse to let political issues invade the areas of our lives that we cherish; politics and political disagreements don’t belong there, and our lives are too important to let them be ruled by (mostly contrived) political disagreements.”
If anything, those words seem more true today than they even did then. And I posit to you that the same applies for bitcoin.
Everyone has some sort of impression or opinion of bitcoin — and most of them are plain wrong. But there’s nothing people love more than a savior in white armor, riding in to dispel their errors about some thing they are freshly out of fucks for. Just like politics, nobody really cares.
Leave them alone. They will find bitcoin in their own time, just like all of us did.
This is a guest post by Joakim Book. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
This is an opinion editorial by Federico Tenga, a long time contributor to Bitcoin projects with experience as start-up founder, consultant and educator.
The term “smart contracts” predates the invention of the blockchain and Bitcoin itself. Its first mention is in a 1994 article by Nick Szabo, who defined smart contracts as a “computerized transaction protocol that executes the terms of a contract.” While by this definition Bitcoin, thanks to its scripting language, supported smart contracts from the very first block, the term was popularized only later by Ethereum promoters, who twisted the original definition as “code that is redundantly executed by all nodes in a global consensus network”
While delegating code execution to a global consensus network has advantages (e.g. it is easy to deploy unowed contracts, such as the popularly automated market makers), this design has one major flaw: lack of scalability (and privacy). If every node in a network must redundantly run the same code, the amount of code that can actually be executed without excessively increasing the cost of running a node (and thus preserving decentralization) remains scarce, meaning that only a small number of contracts can be executed.
But what if we could design a system where the terms of the contract are executed and validated only by the parties involved, rather than by all members of the network? Let us imagine the example of a company that wants to issue shares. Instead of publishing the issuance contract publicly on a global ledger and using that ledger to track all future transfers of ownership, it could simply issue the shares privately and pass to the buyers the right to further transfer them. Then, the right to transfer ownership can be passed on to each new owner as if it were an amendment to the original issuance contract. In this way, each owner can independently verify that the shares he or she received are genuine by reading the original contract and validating that all the history of amendments that moved the shares conform to the rules set forth in the original contract.
This is actually nothing new, it is indeed the same mechanism that was used to transfer property before public registers became popular. In the U.K., for example, it was not compulsory to register a property when its ownership was transferred until the ‘90s. This means that still today over 15% of land in England and Wales is unregistered. If you are buying an unregistered property, instead of checking on a registry if the seller is the true owner, you would have to verify an unbroken chain of ownership going back at least 15 years (a period considered long enough to assume that the seller has sufficient title to the property). In doing so, you must ensure that any transfer of ownership has been carried out correctly and that any mortgages used for previous transactions have been paid off in full. This model has the advantage of improved privacy over ownership, and you do not have to rely on the maintainer of the public land register. On the other hand, it makes the verification of the seller’s ownership much more complicated for the buyer.
Source: Title deed of unregistered real estate propriety
How can the transfer of unregistered properties be improved? First of all, by making it a digitized process. If there is code that can be run by a computer to verify that all the history of ownership transfers is in compliance with the original contract rules, buying and selling becomes much faster and cheaper.
Secondly, to avoid the risk of the seller double-spending their asset, a system of proof of publication must be implemented. For example, we could implement a rule that every transfer of ownership must be committed on a predefined spot of a well-known newspaper (e.g. put the hash of the transfer of ownership in the upper-right corner of the first page of the New York Times). Since you cannot place the hash of a transfer in the same place twice, this prevents double-spending attempts. However, using a famous newspaper for this purpose has some disadvantages:
- You have to buy a lot of newspapers for the verification process. Not very practical.
- Each contract needs its own space in the newspaper. Not very scalable.
- The newspaper editor can easily censor or, even worse, simulate double-spending by putting a random hash in your slot, making any potential buyer of your asset think it has been sold before, and discouraging them from buying it. Not very trustless.
For these reasons, a better place to post proof of ownership transfers needs to be found. And what better option than the Bitcoin blockchain, an already established trusted public ledger with strong incentives to keep it censorship-resistant and decentralized?
If we use Bitcoin, we should not specify a fixed place in the block where the commitment to transfer ownership must occur (e.g. in the first transaction) because, just like with the editor of the New York Times, the miner could mess with it. A better approach is to place the commitment in a predefined Bitcoin transaction, more specifically in a transaction that originates from an unspent transaction output (UTXO) to which the ownership of the asset to be issued is linked. The link between an asset and a bitcoin UTXO can occur either in the contract that issues the asset or in a subsequent transfer of ownership, each time making the target UTXO the controller of the transferred asset. In this way, we have clearly defined where the obligation to transfer ownership should be (i.e in the Bitcoin transaction originating from a particular UTXO). Anyone running a Bitcoin node can independently verify the commitments and neither the miners nor any other entity are able to censor or interfere with the asset transfer in any way.
Since on the Bitcoin blockchain we only publish a commitment of an ownership transfer, not the content of the transfer itself, the seller needs a dedicated communication channel to provide the buyer with all the proofs that the ownership transfer is valid. This could be done in a number of ways, potentially even by printing out the proofs and shipping them with a carrier pigeon, which, while a bit impractical, would still do the job. But the best option to avoid the censorship and privacy violations is establish a direct peer-to-peer encrypted communication, which compared to the pigeons also has the advantage of being easy to integrate with a software to verify the proofs received from the counterparty.
This model just described for client-side validated contracts and ownership transfers is exactly what has been implemented with the RGB protocol. With RGB, it is possible to create a contract that defines rights, assigns them to one or more existing bitcoin UTXO and specifies how their ownership can be transferred. The contract can be created starting from a template, called a “schema,” in which the creator of the contract only adjusts the parameters and ownership rights, as is done with traditional legal contracts. Currently, there are two types of schemas in RGB: one for issuing fungible tokens (RGB20) and a second for issuing collectibles (RGB21), but in the future, more schemas can be developed by anyone in a permissionless fashion without requiring changes at the protocol level.
To use a more practical example, an issuer of fungible assets (e.g. company shares, stablecoins, etc.) can use the RGB20 schema template and create a contract defining how many tokens it will issue, the name of the asset and some additional metadata associated with it. It can then define which bitcoin UTXO has the right to transfer ownership of the created tokens and assign other rights to other UTXOs, such as the right to make a secondary issuance or to renominate the asset. Each client receiving tokens created by this contract will be able to verify the content of the Genesis contract and validate that any transfer of ownership in the history of the token received has complied with the rules set out therein.
So what can we do with RGB in practice today? First and foremost, it enables the issuance and the transfer of tokenized assets with better scalability and privacy compared to any existing alternative. On the privacy side, RGB benefits from the fact that all transfer-related data is kept client-side, so a blockchain observer cannot extract any information about the user’s financial activities (it is not even possible to distinguish a bitcoin transaction containing an RGB commitment from a regular one), moreover, the receiver shares with the sender only blinded UTXO (i. e. the hash of the concatenation between the UTXO in which she wish to receive the assets and a random number) instead of the UTXO itself, so it is not possible for the payer to monitor future activities of the receiver. To further increase the privacy of users, RGB also adopts the bulletproof cryptographic mechanism to hide the amounts in the history of asset transfers, so that even future owners of assets have an obfuscated view of the financial behavior of previous holders.
In terms of scalability, RGB offers some advantages as well. First of all, most of the data is kept off-chain, as the blockchain is only used as a commitment layer, reducing the fees that need to be paid and meaning that each client only validates the transfers it is interested in instead of all the activity of a global network. Since an RGB transfer still requires a Bitcoin transaction, the fee saving may seem minimal, but when you start introducing transaction batching they can quickly become massive. Indeed, it is possible to transfer all the tokens (or, more generally, “rights”) associated with a UTXO towards an arbitrary amount of recipients with a single commitment in a single bitcoin transaction. Let’s assume you are a service provider making payouts to several users at once. With RGB, you can commit in a single Bitcoin transaction thousands of transfers to thousands of users requesting different types of assets, making the marginal cost of each single payout absolutely negligible.
Another fee-saving mechanism for issuers of low value assets is that in RGB the issuance of an asset does not require paying fees. This happens because the creation of an issuance contract does not need to be committed on the blockchain. A contract simply defines to which already existing UTXO the newly issued assets will be allocated to. So if you are an artist interested in creating collectible tokens, you can issue as many as you want for free and then only pay the bitcoin transaction fee when a buyer shows up and requests the token to be assigned to their UTXO.
Furthermore, because RGB is built on top of bitcoin transactions, it is also compatible with the Lightning Network. While it is not yet implemented at the time of writing, it will be possible to create asset-specific Lightning channels and route payments through them, similar to how it works with normal Lightning transactions.
Conclusion
RGB is a groundbreaking innovation that opens up to new use cases using a completely new paradigm, but which tools are available to use it? If you want to experiment with the core of the technology itself, you should directly try out the RGB node. If you want to build applications on top of RGB without having to deep dive into the complexity of the protocol, you can use the rgb-lib library, which provides a simple interface for developers. If you just want to try to issue and transfer assets, you can play with Iris Wallet for Android, whose code is also open source on GitHub. If you just want to learn more about RGB you can check out this list of resources.
This is a guest post by Federico Tenga. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
