Group Tokenization as SLP 2.0 #35
Description
TL;DR talk / collect statements about re-branding Group Tokens as SLP 2.0
As many of you are probably aware, Group Tokenization now exists as a CHIP. I believe it addresses many of the historical concerns about group tokens, because it has evolved since the time you may have last looked at it! I'll first give a brief intro before getting to the point of this thread.
Under the hood, it's only a few additional consensus rules and all they do is sum the token quantities of OP_GROUP marked outputs and check that they balance. Existing rules are not touched so implementation risk is conveniently contained. Token management authorities are checked the same - qty. field is reused as a bitfield and those also have to logically balance according to the rules so consensus logic doesn't need to look around, all the info required to validate the TX is contained in the TX, and it's simple arithmetic ops to check it. This enables both the tokens and authorities to benefit from full power of SPV, SIGHASH, Script, and any other future protocol improvements such as TX introspection. The scaling "big O" is unchanged as we can process token logic alongside BCH logic.
Tokens are thus dual-currency outputs (bch+token) and because of existing dust limit, creation of any token UTXO creates marginal demand for BCH so even if the token becomes worthless there will be incentive to remove the token from the UTXO to reclaim that BCH. I thought this was an interesting side-effect but now I think it's an important feature because it addresses the issue of both UTXO garbage collection and paying for UTXO prime real-estate and keeps incentives around BCH in check. This was just a brief intro, any discussion regarding group tokens should happen on the research forum thread I linked above.
Shortly after that CHIP got some attention, a telegram group was formed. There was talk about rebranding Group Tokenization, and some have proposed to call it SLP 2.0.
It may be good for BCH & SLP image if our group consensus tokens were marketed as SLP 2.0. I believe that having native tokens fits well into vision of Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Cash was never a single currency, and it will never be a single currency, and BCH blockchain is perfect for cash-like uses (without impeding on the utility and incentives surrounding the main currency).
SLP2.0 + cash narrative could give power not only to users but also to community branding and marketing efforts which will all add up to success of BCH and could help it grow big!
I think there's already some agreement forming around this, so it would be good to add your statements somewhere so it's not buried in Telegram history.
PS There are some other related discussions that might be of interest: