frankly, i have read the whole research and it was interesting enough to dive into the RGB 1.0 concept as it may looks like the most exciting thing happening in Bitcoin-based smart contracts right now. Love the focus on scalability without compromising privacy. cant wait to see its implementation on real-world apps and how beneficial it would be at certain levels. it seems promising, on the other hand i was wondering about, how does RGB 1.0 system ensure data integrity across multiple clients without obviousely the common issue of introducing excessive trust assumptions?
The trick is in the fact that the pieces of the state ("atoms") which can be changed/updated are owned - like bitcoin balances in UTXO model (actually, they are linked via the described mechanism of single-use seals). So there can't be any conflict, since either a party updates its state - or not!
Ah, i can see that treating the state changes like UTXOs tied to ownership via single-use seals really simplifies the coordination problem. It’s kind of elegant how conflict resolution becomes unnecessary because ownership is binary: either you hold the right to update a piece of state, or you don’t. No global state to argue over, just local truth. Feels very in line with Bitcoin’s ethos. i suppose
Actually you do also have a global state, but it is append-only: a kind of pile where everyone can add, but no one can change or remove. It is “unowned”.
well that is a ggod way to put it i think, it seems like It makes you think about the weight of what we choose to add, knowing it stays there forever, owned by no one, but influencing everyone. that is kind of fascinating.
One of the most intriguing aspects of RGB's architecture is how it leverages the single-use seal paradigm to enforce state transitions off-chain while maintaining Bitcoin's trust-minimized model. The absence of a global state not only reduces coordination overhead but also aligns perfectly with Bitcoin’s UTXO logic. I'm curious though — are there any known edge cases where state commitments might become ambiguous in multi-party smart contract scenarios, especially when state data is lost or incomplete?
Looks like they took down the link you had.
RGB != $RGB
They made a token called $RGB (and another called $LIGHT) that are built on the RGB protocol. The yellow (technical vs. white/marketing) paper is about the protocol.
and spammed Bitcoin UTXO set. I am not thinking to buy any tokens. I am saying RGB protocol is another avenue to spam on Bitcoin blockchain, apparently.
Been exploring offline-first Lightning payments and wondering how RGB fits into that.
If RGB enables smart contracts and asset issuance over Bitcoin & LN, could it also help solve the trust issues around offline payments? Like verifying conditional transfers later when peers finally reconnect?
Also curious how RGB handles the "sync or lose funds" problem that comes up when users go fully offline and never publish/verify state transitions.
Anyone experimenting with RGB + intermittent connectivity setups?
Wow, this RGB is really cool—a smart contract on Bitcoin, but off-chain and still private. It doesn't burden the blockchain, but it's still powerful. The yellow paper makes the development direction even clearer. The future of Bitcoin-style smart contracts looks increasingly solid!
From my own research, The RGB Yellow Paper outlines a formal specification for Bitcoin and Lightning smart contracts, introducing client-side validation, single-use seals, and schema-based validation. It enables scalable, private, and secure smart contracts, leveraging Bitcoin's UTXO model, and is available on GitHub for community development and review.
Why yellow paper and not white?
https://medium.com/@hello_38248/differences-between-a-white-paper-yellow-paper-and-beige-paper-ad173f982237
retarded
Thanks
frankly, i have read the whole research and it was interesting enough to dive into the RGB 1.0 concept as it may looks like the most exciting thing happening in Bitcoin-based smart contracts right now. Love the focus on scalability without compromising privacy. cant wait to see its implementation on real-world apps and how beneficial it would be at certain levels. it seems promising, on the other hand i was wondering about, how does RGB 1.0 system ensure data integrity across multiple clients without obviousely the common issue of introducing excessive trust assumptions?
The trick is in the fact that the pieces of the state ("atoms") which can be changed/updated are owned - like bitcoin balances in UTXO model (actually, they are linked via the described mechanism of single-use seals). So there can't be any conflict, since either a party updates its state - or not!
Ah, i can see that treating the state changes like UTXOs tied to ownership via single-use seals really simplifies the coordination problem. It’s kind of elegant how conflict resolution becomes unnecessary because ownership is binary: either you hold the right to update a piece of state, or you don’t. No global state to argue over, just local truth. Feels very in line with Bitcoin’s ethos. i suppose
Actually you do also have a global state, but it is append-only: a kind of pile where everyone can add, but no one can change or remove. It is “unowned”.
well that is a ggod way to put it i think, it seems like It makes you think about the weight of what we choose to add, knowing it stays there forever, owned by no one, but influencing everyone. that is kind of fascinating.
One of the most intriguing aspects of RGB's architecture is how it leverages the single-use seal paradigm to enforce state transitions off-chain while maintaining Bitcoin's trust-minimized model. The absence of a global state not only reduces coordination overhead but also aligns perfectly with Bitcoin’s UTXO logic. I'm curious though — are there any known edge cases where state commitments might become ambiguous in multi-party smart contract scenarios, especially when state data is lost or incomplete?
500,000 for btc 2030
Love the focus on scalability without compromising privac
Eu acho isso melhor e poderoso
It this related? https://bitlightlabs.com/wallet
They are now bloating Bitcoin UTXO set with 420,000 tiny transactions. Fucking retards (((
view on x.comNo, RGB is not a token, but a new protocol for building on it. Check it out at https://rgb.tech
Those guys claim they build on RGB protocol:
Looks like they took down the link you had. RGB != $RGB
They made a token called $RGB (and another called $LIGHT) that are built on the RGB protocol. The yellow (technical vs. white/marketing) paper is about the protocol.
No, both links work. So my prediction was spot on.
The $RGB token has mothing to do with RGB protocol (except it is issued on it).
RGB itself is tokenless. Do mot be scammed
and spammed Bitcoin UTXO set. I am not thinking to buy any tokens. I am saying RGB protocol is another avenue to spam on Bitcoin blockchain, apparently.
https://xcancel.com/AKAKAY04/status/1953142475922784736
Been exploring offline-first Lightning payments and wondering how RGB fits into that.
If RGB enables smart contracts and asset issuance over Bitcoin & LN, could it also help solve the trust issues around offline payments? Like verifying conditional transfers later when peers finally reconnect?
Also curious how RGB handles the "sync or lose funds" problem that comes up when users go fully offline and never publish/verify state transitions.
Anyone experimenting with RGB + intermittent connectivity setups?
Good news
Hello ✌🏼
Anyone here attempted building on RGB yet?
I can see a new wave of federated physical world asset (i.e. metals). The icing on the cake is less centralization risk because it's built on bitcoin.
200
Wow, this RGB is really cool—a smart contract on Bitcoin, but off-chain and still private. It doesn't burden the blockchain, but it's still powerful. The yellow paper makes the development direction even clearer. The future of Bitcoin-style smart contracts looks increasingly solid!
Trying multiple wallets seems good first day but you realize that split funds is not the ideal decision.
Fhg
From my own research, The RGB Yellow Paper outlines a formal specification for Bitcoin and Lightning smart contracts, introducing client-side validation, single-use seals, and schema-based validation. It enables scalable, private, and secure smart contracts, leveraging Bitcoin's UTXO model, and is available on GitHub for community development and review.
deleted by author