[bitcoindev] Knowledge Gathering: SPV Proof Applications In the Wild and Proposed

[bitcoindev] Knowledge Gathering: SPV Proof Applications In the Wild and Proposed

[jeremy]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1281 bytes --]

Dear Bitcoin Developers,

SPV proofs are an important part of Bitcoin's Design, after all Satoshi 
thought they were worth including in the whitepaper!

As far as I'm aware, they have somewhat limited usage in the wild, mainly 
in Electrum and in Layer 2 Bridges, but it is important that they work 
correctly.

I'd like to gather a bit more detailed information on where and how SPV 
proofs are currently used, as well as any other proposed uses of SPV proofs.

In this Knowledge Gathering, I'd also like to glean a better understanding 
of what types of commitment structures might work "better" than others for 
SPV -- e.g., ability to cheaply verify if a block pays a particular 
address, spends a particular coin, and the exclusion forms (does not pay an 
address, does not spend a coin) etc, especially in the context of Layer 2 
Bridging.

Happy International Chihuahua Appreciation Day,

Jeremy

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a3049fd5-e001-4d3a-9c99-d5629f47dfd8n%40googlegroups.com.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1686 bytes --]

[bitcoindev] Re: Knowledge Gathering: SPV Proof Applications In the Wild and Proposed

[Ekrem BAL]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2598 bytes --]

Hi Jeremy,

For Citrea/Clementine, we currently use SPV-style proofs in two main places.

First, on the Citrea side, the Bridge system contract uses Bitcoin 
transaction inclusion proofs to accept peg-ins/deposits. See:

<https://github.com/chainwayxyz/citrea/blob/487daa67fc54feb789b618a0ca2be1cc2f09b198/crates/evm/src/evm/system_contracts/src/Bridge.sol#L196>

The contract checks inclusion through Citrea's Bitcoin light client 
contract. More details here:

<https://docs.citrea.xyz/developer-documentation/system-contracts/bitcoin-light-client>

Second, in the Clementine Bridge proof, we use SPV proofs for verifying 
operator payout transactions. If an operator is challenged, the operator 
proves that there exists a payout transaction paying the withdrawal. See:

<https://github.com/chainwayxyz/clementine/blob/b711e92ef2725e8b3cdaacc2683583f11b5aec28/circuits-lib/src/bridge_circuit/spv.rs>

On your question about commitment structures, I think being able to verify 
that a particular coin was not spent in a block might be helpful, as it 
could make creating SNARK proofs for operator honesty easier in some bridge 
designs.

Best,
Ekrem BAL
On Thursday, May 14, 2026 at 10:47:59 AM UTC-4 jeremy wrote:

> Dear Bitcoin Developers,
>
> SPV proofs are an important part of Bitcoin's Design, after all Satoshi 
> thought they were worth including in the whitepaper!
>
> As far as I'm aware, they have somewhat limited usage in the wild, mainly 
> in Electrum and in Layer 2 Bridges, but it is important that they work 
> correctly.
>
> I'd like to gather a bit more detailed information on where and how SPV 
> proofs are currently used, as well as any other proposed uses of SPV proofs.
>
> In this Knowledge Gathering, I'd also like to glean a better understanding 
> of what types of commitment structures might work "better" than others for 
> SPV -- e.g., ability to cheaply verify if a block pays a particular 
> address, spends a particular coin, and the exclusion forms (does not pay an 
> address, does not spend a coin) etc, especially in the context of Layer 2 
> Bridging.
>
> Happy International Chihuahua Appreciation Day,
>
> Jeremy
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/17f62129-3f3e-4624-ac12-2c3ede886735n%40googlegroups.com.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3234 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoindev] Knowledge Gathering: SPV Proof Applications In the Wild and Proposed

[Olaoluwa Osuntokun]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3420 bytes --]

Taproot Assets uses SPV proofs in the proof file format for an asset. Each
asset starts at a gensis point, then proves that the rules of the overlay
layer
were followed each each new state transition. Each state transition
includes an
SPV proof of the transaction that commits to the state transition.

An upcoming revamp of the LN gossip protocol also has a cut out to
optionally
include an SPV proof with a channel announcement message. This makes the
protocol more light client friendly, as otherwise a light client would need
to
fetch tens of thousands of blocks to verify that a channel actually exists.

It isn't specified today, but a future extension to the `channel_update`
message could include a merkle proof of a _spent_ funding output to provide
a
verifiable gossip layer proof that a channel has been closed. Today setting
a
disabled bit in the channel update is used in place, but that's overloaded
with
other signals (eg: the peer is offline).

> does not spend a coin

If the Merkle Tree were actually a Sparse Merkle Tree, then we'd have a
succinct way proving that a given transaction wasn't in a block. If such a
commitment were added over the set of spent outputs, then you could also
succinctly prove that a transaction wasn't spent in a block.

Such an STXO commitment would also be useful for SwiftSync as then peers are
able to verify the integrity of the undo data.


-- Laolu

On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 7:47 AM jeremy <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Bitcoin Developers,
>
> SPV proofs are an important part of Bitcoin's Design, after all Satoshi
> thought they were worth including in the whitepaper!
>
> As far as I'm aware, they have somewhat limited usage in the wild, mainly
> in Electrum and in Layer 2 Bridges, but it is important that they work
> correctly.
>
> I'd like to gather a bit more detailed information on where and how SPV
> proofs are currently used, as well as any other proposed uses of SPV proofs.
>
> In this Knowledge Gathering, I'd also like to glean a better understanding
> of what types of commitment structures might work "better" than others for
> SPV -- e.g., ability to cheaply verify if a block pays a particular
> address, spends a particular coin, and the exclusion forms (does not pay an
> address, does not spend a coin) etc, especially in the context of Layer 2
> Bridging.
>
> Happy International Chihuahua Appreciation Day,
>
> Jeremy
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a3049fd5-e001-4d3a-9c99-d5629f47dfd8n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a3049fd5-e001-4d3a-9c99-d5629f47dfd8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAO3Pvs8%3DkrFLHO1vjNitSAMLJTP7Ss%2B5auSXFf-OHEs7J1nV8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4296 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Knowledge Gathering: SPV Proof Applications In the Wild and Proposed

[Sergio Demian Lerner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4061 bytes --]

Rootstock uses SPV proofs to power its Bitcoin SPV node that runs in
consensus inside the Bridge smart contract. The bridge uses SPV proofs to
accept peg-ins and peg-outs change, after 100 Bitcoin confirmations.
The system is decentralized: any user can submit Bitcoin headers to build
the Bridge view of Bitcoin. The Bridge maintains the canonical chain and
all potential forks. All forks can be extended with block headers having
the right PoW.
The codebase is based on Bitcoinj.
The system has been running since 2018 without interruptions.
The SPV proof verifier is protected from Merkle node type confusions
(64-byte txs).

Sergio

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 3:37 PM jeremy <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com> wrote:

> I received the below as reply-one and am forwarding with permission:
>
> ------
>
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> This is a presentation I did in 2016 on SPV as "Satoshi's scaling
> solution".
>
> There are no new types of proofs, just old fashioned proofs-of-coin and
> proofs-of-spend. My approach was to try to envision what the whole network
> would need to look like.
>
> A common objection to SPV was that full nodes would be "overloaded", so I
> introduced spv-serving light nodes with different services.
>
> A key idea (which is not stated explicitly in the slides) is for a node to
> advertise interest in a set of tx hash stems for which it would provide
> proof services, and for which it wanted to be relayed transactions.  The
> set would contain stems of varying lengths that could be as short as 1 hex
> character or as long as some max.
>
> Wallets would do this same registration to cause transactions to be routed
> to themselves.  Nearly all of those stems would be randomly introduced for
> privacy.
>
> Bloom filters are mentioned as part of a transaction repeater service but
> that was for compatibility with existing SPV wallets of the time.  The main
> idea was to achieve scaling and privacy by the registration scheme.
>
> Hope it's useful in some way!
>
>
> Cheers,
> Tom Harding
>
>
> On Thursday, May 14, 2026 at 10:47:59 AM UTC-4 jeremy wrote:
>
>> Dear Bitcoin Developers,
>>
>> SPV proofs are an important part of Bitcoin's Design, after all Satoshi
>> thought they were worth including in the whitepaper!
>>
>> As far as I'm aware, they have somewhat limited usage in the wild, mainly
>> in Electrum and in Layer 2 Bridges, but it is important that they work
>> correctly.
>>
>> I'd like to gather a bit more detailed information on where and how SPV
>> proofs are currently used, as well as any other proposed uses of SPV proofs.
>>
>> In this Knowledge Gathering, I'd also like to glean a better
>> understanding of what types of commitment structures might work "better"
>> than others for SPV -- e.g., ability to cheaply verify if a block pays a
>> particular address, spends a particular coin, and the exclusion forms (does
>> not pay an address, does not spend a coin) etc, especially in the context
>> of Layer 2 Bridging.
>>
>> Happy International Chihuahua Appreciation Day,
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/9001a42f-b497-41c1-895d-3ec902f2413cn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/9001a42f-b497-41c1-895d-3ec902f2413cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAKzdR-pSKPXjBnWJZMASDRZve5Y1ekeTo7eG_f%3DWV-vVn1xZPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6107 bytes --]