Connect with us

Opinion

Shielded CSV Protocol 🛡️

Published

on



Introduction

Bitcoin development today focuses on two major issues: (1) scaling and (2) privacy. The usual proposals to Bitcoin involve adding new opcodes and scripting tools. But an old idea is coming back, one that could make transactions more private and peer-to-peer. Right now, every Bitcoin transaction is broadcast to the entire network for verification. It’s an effective way to prevent double-spending, but it also means more information is exposed than is strictly necessary. This leads to heavier computational demands, higher costs, and a system that struggles to scale. But what if moving part of the transaction process client-side didn’t just improve efficiency, but also unlocks a whole new era of privacy on Bitcoin?

In our recently published paper, Blockstream, in collaboration with Alpen Labs and ZeroSync, we introduce the Shielded CSV Protocol, an improvement on Client-Side Validation (CSV) that offers truly private transactions. This new protocol is a significant step towards enhancing the privacy of Bitcoin transactions and has the potential to increase transaction capacity from 11 per second to over 100 per second, through some additional measures we’ll cover in this blog post.

This post offers a high-level overview of the Shielded CSV Protocol, which aims to advance layer one blockchain performance while remaining fully compatible with Bitcoin. Developed by the combined minds of Jonas Nick, Liam Eagen, and Robin Linus. Here’s the backstory on Shielded CSV, and why it has the potential to change everything.

Bitcoin Then and Now

The Double-Spend Problem: How Bitcoin Solved It

Before Bitcoin, it was widely believed that creating a reliable digital currency was impossible without a trusted middleman. The double-spend problem meant there was no way to ensure a “digital coin” couldn’t be spent more than once. It was a fundamental flaw that kept digital currency from becoming a reality.

Then, in 2009, Satoshi addressed this problem by introducing the shared public ledger called the blockchain. Instead of relying on a single trusted authority, Bitcoin uses a network of nodes on a shared public ledger, where every transaction is recorded and verified. This system ensures that each coin is unique, making it impossible to spend the same coin twice.

When a Bitcoin transaction is added to the chain, it follows this process:

  1. The user’s wallet signs the transaction and broadcasts it to the Bitcoin network.
  2. Full nodes on the network validate the transaction, ensuring everything checks out.
  3. The transaction is then included in a block, confirmed, and permanently recorded in the shared public ledger.

During validation, nodes verify that the coins exist, check the validity of the signature, and enforce the critical double-spend rule—making sure each coin is spent only once. The whole purpose of this ledger is to maintain order, showing clearly who owns which coins and when they moved.

The purpose of the ledger is to keep transactions in order, making it clear who owns what coins and when they were sent.

Since its inception, Bitcoin’s developers keep coming back to the same question: is this really the best and most private way to handle transactions? How can we make this system leaner, more efficient, and more private?

A Privacy Problem: Public Transactions

Bitcoin’s biggest privacy challenge is that bitcoin transactions are out there in the open on the blockchain. Satoshi saw this vulnerability from the beginning. In the original whitepaper, he suggested a straightforward solution: users should create new keys for each transaction and avoid reusing addresses.

The idea was to make it harder to link transactions back to a single owner. But in practice, with all the advanced chain analysis methods available today, maintaining privacy is much harder than it seems. Even with new addresses, linking transactions and identifying patterns has become easier for those intent on tracing user activity.

In response, privacy-focused protocols like Zcash have introduced novel ways to conceal transaction details using more advanced cryptography and things like zk-SNARKs. But these methods come with significant trade-offs: transactions are larger, making the verification process for nodes more resource-intensive and expensive to verify.

A Communication Problem: Communication is Inefficient

In Bitcoin’s design, mining serves two fundamental purposes: (1) proof-of-publication for transactions and (2) providing a consensus on the order of transactions. However, Bitcoins’ system also intertwines these core functions with less essential tasks, like transaction validation and coin issuance.

Across all blockchains, whether it’s Bitcoin, Ethereum, Zcash, or Dogecoin, the transaction process always looks the same: wallets sign transactions, broadcast them to the network, and full nodes validate them. But is validating every transaction directly on the blockchain really necessary?

We think there’s a better way. The idea traces back to a 2013 insight, when Peter Todd first mentioned Client-Side Validation. In this mailing list post he asks, ‘Given only proof-of-publication, and a consensus on the order of transactions, can we make a successful crypto-coin system? Surprisingly, the answer is yes!

Instead of requiring every full node to verify every transaction, CSV allows you to send coins with proof of their validity directly to the recipient. It means that even if a block contains an invalid transaction, full nodes won’t reject it. The result? Less on-chain communication and a more efficient system overall.

CSV: A Peer-to-Peer Scaling Solution

CSV shifts the responsibility of transaction validation from every node in the network to the individual transaction recipients. This makes Bitcoin even more peer-to-peer. Imagine if we didn’t have to use the blockchain to store full transaction details. Instead of a detailed, identity-linked transaction, you’d only see a simple 64-byte nullifier, completely meaningless to anyone looking at the public record on the blockchain, but significant to the sender and recipient.

When every node is required to verify every transaction, it congests the network and slows it down. By shifting transaction validation to the client side, the amount of data stored on the blockchain can shrink significantly—from 560 weight units (WU) on average to something approaching 64 WU, which is about 8.75 times smaller, making the system leaner and more efficient.

The compliance protocol gives Bitcoin a massive scalability boost, allowing users to process nearly 10 times more transactions—close to 100 per second.

Bitcoin Tomorrow

You’re probably thinking, “This all sounds great, but how does this actually work, and what are the trade-offs here?”

How Does Shielded CSV Make Bitcoin More Private?

CSV protocols generally improve privacy over transparent blockchain transactions because some information is moved client-side. But in traditional CSV protocols like RGB and Taproot Assets, when a coin is sent, both the sender and receiver can view the full transaction history.

In Shielded CSV, we use zk-SNARK-like schemes to “compress” the proofs, ensuring that no transaction information is leaked. This means that the transaction history remains hidden, offering better privacy compared to existing protocols.

What is a Nullifier, and How Does it Prevent Double-Spends?

When making a payment, the sender hands the transaction directly to the receiver. A small piece of data derived from the transaction, gets written to the blockchain which is called the nullifier.

Full nodes in the network are only required to perform a single Schnorr signature verification per Shielded CSV nullifier. The receiver checks the coin’s validity and makes sure the nullifier is on the blockchain to stop any double-spending.

Other CSV protocols have nullifiers too, but in many cases they are full Bitcoin transactions, and not derived “random blobs” as we have here. Shielded CSV nullifiers make it harder to do chain analysis.

Does Shielded CSV Require a Soft or Hard Fork?

Shielded CSV doesn’t require a soft or hard fork. It works with Bitcoin as-is. CSV separates transaction validation from the consensus rules, allowing flexibility without changing the core protocol. Since Bitcoin blocks can store any type of data, different CSV protocols like RGB, Taproot Assets, or multiple versions of Shielded CSV can coexist without conflict.

Nodes don’t have to reject blocks containing unfamiliar data. Instead, they only need to interpret the data on the “client-side” if it’s relevant to them. By offloading transaction verification, the blockchain’s primary role is reduced to: confirming transaction data in an agreed-upon order and preventing double-spends.

Does Shielded CSV allow me to Transact in Bitcoin?

Shielded CSV operates as a separate system, using the Bitcoin blockchain to record nullifiers and prevent double-spending within the CSV protocol. But to integrate it directly with Bitcoin and allow seamless transactions, a bridging solution is still needed. The current protocol doesn’t dive deeply into how bridging with BitVM could function, but this area is a development that is still under active research.

Right now, bridging is possible through the use of a trusted party or a federation, but the end goal is a fully trustless system, one that eliminates the need for any intermediaries. Achieving this would mean true, seamless interaction between Bitcoin and Shielded CSV, allowing users to enjoy enhanced privacy without compromising on the trustless values of Bitcoin. It’s a complex challenge, but one that could redefine how Bitcoin scales and secures its transactions.

Read the Full Paper

The Shielded CSV Protocol offers an approach to improving Bitcoin’s scalability and privacy, potentially bringing in a new era of more efficient, peer-to-peer transactions. By offloading transaction validation to the client side, it significantly reduces on-chain data, allowing for greater transaction throughput and enhanced privacy—all without requiring a hard or soft fork. If you’re curious to read more about how this protocol works and the trade-offs involved, I highly encourage you to read the full paper, “Shielded CSV: Private and Efficient Client-Side Validation”. This might just be the future of Bitcoin.

This is a guest post by Kiara Bickers. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.



Source link

Blockchain

Most Layer 2 solutions are still struggling with scalability

Published

on


Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.

Since pivoting to a layer 2-centric approach, the Ethereum (ETH) ecosystem has relied heavily on L2 solutions to scale. However, these solutions are struggling to compete effectively, especially under pressure from alternatives like Solana (SOL). During the recent meme coin craze, Solana attracted much of the activity due to its advantages: low fees, high transaction speed, and user-friendliness.

To understand the challenges, it’s essential to examine why L2 solutions have not demonstrated the scalability and cost advantages that were widely anticipated.

Why meme projects favor Solana over Ethereum L2s

Meme projects have significantly contributed to the recent surge in market activity. These projects favor Solana for several reasons beyond user-friendliness:

  • Low fees: Solana’s low transaction costs make it ideal for fee-sensitive applications like memecoins.
  • High speed: Solana’s multithreaded architecture enables high throughput, ensuring seamless user experiences.
  • Better developer experience: Solana’s tools and ecosystem are optimized for ease of use, attracting developers and projects.

Why is scalability important?

Scalability is fundamentally measured by the number of transactions a blockchain can process. A highly scalable blockchain can handle more TXs while offering lower fees, making it crucial for widespread adoption and maintaining a seamless user experience.

This is especially important for grassroots projects like meme coins, many of which are short-lived and highly fee-sensitive. Without scalability, these projects cannot thrive, and users will migrate to platforms that offer better efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Why Ethereum L2s aren’t up to the challenge

Architectural limitations of Ethereum. Ethereum has long faced scalability issues, and L2 rollups are its primary solution to these problems. L2s operate as independent blockchains that process transactions off-chain while posting transaction results and proofs back to Ethereum’s mainnet. They inherit Ethereum’s security, making them a promising scaling approach.

However, Ethereum’s original design poses inherent challenges. Ethereum’s founder, Vitalik Buterin, has admitted that “Ethereum was never designed for scalability.” One of the key limitations is the lack of multithreading in the Ethereum Virtual Machine. The EVM, which processes transactions, is strictly single-threaded, meaning it can handle only one transaction at a time. In contrast, Solana’s multithreaded architecture allows it to process multiple transactions simultaneously, significantly increasing throughput.

L2s inheriting Ethereum’s limitations. Virtually all L2 solutions inherit Ethereum’s single-threaded EVM design, which results in low efficiency. For instance, Arbitrum: With a targeted gas limit of 7 million per second and each coin transfer costing 21,000 gas, Arbitrum can handle about 333 simple transactions per second. More complex smart contract calls consume even more gas, significantly reducing capacity. Optimism: With a gas limit of 5 million per block and a block time of 2 seconds, Optimism can handle only about 119 simple transfers per second. Gas-intensive operations further reduce this capacity.

Unstable fees. Another major issue with Ethereum and its L2 solutions is unstable fees during periods of high network activity. For applications relying on low and stable fees, this is a critical drawback. Projects like meme coins are especially fee-sensitive, making Ethereum-based L2s less attractive.

Lack of interoperability between L2s. The scalability argument for having multiple L2s only holds if contracts on different L2s can interact freely. However, rollups are essentially independent blockchains, and accessing data from one rollup to another is as challenging as cross-chain communication. This lack of interoperability significantly limits the potential of L2 scalability.

What can L2s do to further scale?

Embed features to enhance interoperability. Ethereum L1 needs to do more to support interoperability among L2s. For example, the recent ERC-7786: Cross-Chain Messaging Gateway is a step in the right direction. While it doesn’t fully resolve the interoperability issue, it simplifies communication between L2s and L1, laying the groundwork for further improvements.

Architectural updates: Diverge from the existing L1 design. To compete with multithreaded blockchains like Solana, L2s must break free from Ethereum’s single-threaded EVM design and adopt parallel execution. This may require a complete overhaul of the EVM, but the potential scalability gains make it a worthwhile endeavor.

Future milestones

Ethereum’s L2 solutions face significant challenges in delivering the scalability and cost-effectiveness that applications like meme coins demand. To stay competitive, the ecosystem must address fundamental architectural limitations, enhance interoperability, and embrace innovations in blockchain design. Only by doing so can Ethereum L2s achieve the scalability needed to support widespread adoption and fend off competition from emerging blockchains like Solana.

Laurent Zhang

Laurent Zhang

Laurent Zhang is the president and founder of Arcology Network, a revolutionizing Ethereum layer-2 solution with the first-ever EVM-equivalent, multithreaded rollup—offering unparalleled performance and efficiency for developers building the next generation of decentralized applications. With an executive leadership and innovation background, Laurent holds a degree from Oxford Brookes University. Laurent’s professional journey includes over a decade of experience in science, research, engineering, and leadership roles. After graduating in 2005, he joined MKS Instruments as an Algorithm Engineer. From 2010 to 2012, he worked as a research engineer at the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute, followed by a position as a research scientist at Baker Hughes from 2012 to 2014. He then served as vice president of engineering at Quikflo Health between 2016 and 2018. Since 2017, Laurent has been the president of Arcology Network, being a visionary of a future where blockchain technology reaches its full potential, offering unmatched scalability, efficiency, and innovation.



Source link

Continue Reading

21 Million

No, BlackRock Can't Change Bitcoin

Published

on


Recently, BlackRock released an educational video explaining Bitcoin, which I thought was great—it’s amazing to see Bitcoin being discussed on such a massive platform. But, of course, Bitcoin X (Twitter) had a meltdown over one specific line in the video: “There is no guarantee that Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap will not be changed.”

HealthRnager from Natural News claimed, “Bitcoin has become far too centralized, and now the wrong people largely control its algorithms. They are TELLING you in advance what they plan to do.”

Now, let me be clear: this is total nonsense. The controversy is overhyped, and the idea that BlackRock would—or even could—change bitcoin’s supply is laughable. The statement in their video is technically true, but it’s just a legal disclaimer. It doesn’t mean BlackRock is plotting to inflate bitcoin’s supply. And even if they were, they don’t have the power to pull it off.

Bitcoin’s 21 million cap is fundamental—it’s not up for debate. The entire Bitcoin ecosystem—miners, developers, and nodes—operates on this core principle. Without it, Bitcoin wouldn’t be Bitcoin. And while BlackRock is a financial giant and holds over 500,000 Bitcoin for its ETF, its influence over Bitcoin is practically nonexistent.

Bitcoin is a proof-of-work (PoW) system, not a proof-of-stake (PoS) system. It doesn’t matter how much bitcoin BlackRock owns; economic nodes hold the real power.

Let’s play devil’s advocate for a second. Say BlackRock tries to propose a protocol change to increase bitcoin’s supply. What happens? The vast network of nodes would simply reject it. Bitcoin’s history proves this. Remember Roger Ver and the Bitcoin Cash fork? He had significant influence and holdings, yet his version of bitcoin became irrelevant because the majority of economic actors didn’t follow him.

If Bitcoin could be controlled by a single entity like BlackRock, it would’ve failed a long time ago. The U.S. government, with its endless money printer, could easily acquire 10% of the supply if that’s all it took to control Bitcoin. But that’s not how Bitcoin works. Its decentralized nature ensures no single entity—no matter how powerful—can dictate its terms.

So, stop worrying about BlackRock “changing” Bitcoin. Their influence has hard limits. Even if they tried to push developers to change the protocol, nodes would reject it. Bitcoin’s decentralization is its greatest strength, and no one—not BlackRock, not Michael Saylor—can change that.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.



Source link

Continue Reading

Opinion

It’s Time to Admit It – There Are Only 2.1 Quadrillion Bitcoins

Published

on


If the above statement offends you, you might not have read the Bitcoin source code.

Follow Rizzo on X.

https://x.com/pete_rizzo_/

Of course, I’m sure you’ve heard that there are 21 million bitcoin – and this is true, the Bitcoin protocol allows for only “21 million bitcoin” to be created, yet these larger denominations can be subdivided into 100 million sub-units each.

Call them whatever you want, there are only 2.1 quadrillion monetary units in the protocol.

This dollars and cents differential has long been the subject of debate – in the time of Satoshi, Bitcoin’s creator, the dual conventions, Bitcoin having both a bulk denomination, and a smaller unit, was not much of a concern. There were questions about whether the software would work at all, and bitcoin were so worthless, selling them in bulk was the only rational option.

Rehashing this debate is BIP 21Q, a proposal to the Bitcoin users authored by John Carvalho, founder of Synonym, creator of the Pubky social media platform, and a tenured contributor whose work dates back to the days of the influential Bitcoin-assets collective.

In short, the BIP proposes that network actors – the various wallets and exchanges – change how Bitcoin denominations are displayed, with the smallest unit of the protocol renamed “bitcoins,” as opposed to “satoshis,” as they have been commonly called.

Here are the specifics of the BIP:

Redefinition of the Unit:

  • Internally, the smallest indivisible unit remains unchanged.
  • Historically, 1 BTC = 100,000,000 base units. Under this proposal, “1 bitcoin” equals that smallest unit.
  • What was previously referred to as “1 BTC” now corresponds to 100 million bitcoins under the new definition.

Terminology:

  • The informal terms “satoshi” or “sat” are deprecated.
  • All references, interfaces, and documentation SHOULD refer to the base integer unit simply as “bitcoin.”

Display and Formatting:

  • Applications SHOULD present values as whole integers without decimals.
  • Example:
    • Old display: 0.00010000 BTC
    • New display: 10000 BTC (or ₿10000)

Unsurprisingly, the debate around the BIP has been hostile. For one, it’s not a technical BIP, though this is not a requirement of the BIP process. Suffice to say, it’s perhaps the most general BIP that has been proposed under the BIP process to date, as it mainly deals with market conventions and user onboarding logic, not any changes to the software rules.

However, I have to say, I find the proposal compelling. Nik Hoffman, our News Editor, does not, preferring to stick to the market affirmative.

Yet, I think the proposal raises relevant questions: why should new users be forced to compute their Bitcoin balances using only decimals? Surely this has the adverse side effect of making commerce difficult – it’s simply antithetical to how people think and act today.

Also, in terms of savings, at an $100,000 BTC price, it isn’t exactly compelling to think you could be spending a whole year earning 1 BTC, though that may be.

Indeed, there have been various debates for all kinds of units – mBTC, uBTC – that play around with the dollars and cents convention, but Carvalho here is wisely skipping to the end, preferring just to rip the band-aid off. $1 would buy 1,000 bitcoins under his proposal.

What’s to like here, and I argued this during a Lugano debate on the topic in 2023, is that it keeps both the larger BTC denomination and the smaller unit, now bitcoins. They are both important, and serve different functions.

My argument then was that having a larger denomination like BTC (100 million bitcoins) is important. If there was no “BTC unit,” the press and financial media would be faced to reckon that “1 bitcoin” is still worth less than 1 cent. 

How much mainstream coverage and interest do we think there would be? I’d bet not very much.

In this way, BIP 21Q is a best-of-both-worlds approach.

The financial world, press, and media can continue championing the meteoric rise in value of “BTC,” while everyday users can get rid of decimals and complex calculations, trading the only real Bitcoin unit guaranteed to exist in perpetuity. 

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement [ethereumads]

Trending

    wpChatIcon