0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dieselbaby 24 Oct 2023 \ on: The BitVM Primer: A Non-technical Explanation of BitVM bitcoin
Ah - Tyler...you're a Taproot Wizard, I see. I'm a big fan of Eric and Udi and by extension, the rest of y'all, I assume if you're a Wizard then you're probably someone I'm likely to get along with.
BTW, this is awesome stuff. I actually did understand exactly what was implied within your paper (which I have to say, was written in a very accessible manner for those who might not be sufficiently "tech-savvy" when it comes to some of the intricacies of stuff like solidity/EVM and the differences between this approach and what they are able to do over there on Ethereum. I sent it to a buddy who is way less nerdy than myself and he was able to grasp most of it, with only a few questions for me at the end of his reading it.
The ability for BitVM to verify ZK proofs is to me, the most important aspect of all of this. Obviously, the other stuff is quite cool - verification of other programs, I see this being great for the mentioned bridging features as you said in the paper but for other potential implementations that haven't even been fully thought-out yet, especially once ZKs can get brought into the mix, it'll unlock a litany of fun things that Bitcoin sorely needs, IMHO.
I also fully agree on the idea that Bitcoin will inevitably (sooner rather than later) need a ZK rollup. I hope that it happens, so badly. Lightning has a lot of issues, many of which are pretty fundamental and bringing limitations to it's capacity to scale properly, and they are so fundamental and close to the core of the design that trying to fix them all would provably be a wasted effort. With ZK we don't sacrifice the speed nor scalability, while relying upon the underlying strength of the main chain, it's win-win. It'll be the scaling that we deserve.
Anyway I have so much to say here but I gotta go pick up my food before this place closes, I'll edit this post if I can when I get back. Much love!