2026-01-16 17:40:52

BitVM2 Withdrawal Process Design Issue: Why User Experience Has Been Sacrificed

In the architecture of BitVM2, the withdrawal step exposes a key contradiction—the system design clearly favors the operators. Fixedly anchored UTXOs, pre-signed transaction graphs, and time lock mechanisms—these mechanisms that should run in the background have directly infiltrated the user interaction layer.

Seemingly perfect technical solutions become cumbersome and less user-friendly in the actual withdrawal process. This design trade-off reflects the common dilemma of current LayerTwo solutions—security and centralized control needs are often sacrificed at the expense of user experience. To truly optimize the usability of BitVM2, these infrastructural limitations need to be re-evaluated.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MetaverseLandlady

· 9h ago

Oh no, this design is really outrageous, the user experience is directly treated as a stepping stone... --- It's the same old excuse again, security is important but don't treat us as test subjects --- Basically still the same centralized approach, just dressed in a technical exterior --- Pre-signed transactions, time locks... everyone knows how hard it is to transfer a coin --- Problems at the architecture layer won't be solved, and users will ultimately be the ones to suffer --- It's a typical case of empowering oneself while leaving trouble for the users --- I just want to ask, why can't these issues be considered more thoroughly earlier, instead of changing after launch --- LayerTwo seems to be increasingly repeating the old centralized tricks --- It feels like tech guys are just having fun, forgetting that the end users are ordinary people --- I've heard "complicated" and "not user-friendly" too many times, when will there be real improvements?

View OriginalReply0

fren.eth

· 11h ago

It's the same old story again, prioritizing security over user experience. To put it simply, it's for the convenience of managing themselves, forcing users to adapt to a bunch of complicated processes...

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinGuardian

· 11h ago

It's that old cliché of "security vs. experience" again... Honestly, it's just a centralized compromise solution.

View OriginalReply0

Blockwatcher9000

· 11h ago

Is it that old cliché again, that security and user experience are mutually exclusive? It feels like an excuse for lazy design. Basically, it's for the convenience of operators to control, user experience? That's a later concern. Wait, is there really no better compromise for this UTXO anchoring scheme, forcing ordinary users to bear this cost? Every L2 has this problem, why does no one dare to redesign it truly... Even basic operations like withdrawing funds are sluggish, and you still want to attract newcomers?

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityHunter

· 11h ago

It's the same old story: the technology is perfect, but users suffer. This is the common problem with L2 now.

View OriginalReply0