SatoshiVM - "A New Era For Bitcoin"

[Wind_FURY]

SCAM

Probably the best solution to replace the inefficient method of bringing NFTs and Tokens in Bitcoin through Ordinals is an off-chain layer called Rollups, WHICH, will bring Ethereum-style smart contracts and Turing-Completeness. Whether or not Turing-complete programs are needed for Bitcoin, and by the community, is debatable. But because it's going to be built within its own off-chain network then it shouldn't truly be a problem on-chain.

SatoshiVM is a decentralized Bitcoin ZK Rollup Layer2 solution compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) ecosystem, using native BTC as gas. SatoshiVM bridges the EVM ecosystem with Bitcoin, enabling the Bitcoin ecosystem to issue assets and develop applications.

We have improved a method that can verify the correct execution of arbitrary functions on Bitcoin, making it more suitable for Layer2 block validation. Verification System of SatoshiVM is a system that can ensure the accurate execution of Layer2 blocks on Bitcoin. This system does not require any modifications to Bitcoin itself. It is capable of confirming whether a series of Layer2 blocks are executed correctly on Bitcoin without any changes to the existing infrastructure. This allows Bitcoin to serve as a settlement layer for Layer2, enhancing the security of Bitcoin Layer2 transactions.

The system leverages the features of Taproot, which enables the representation of the execution process of a set of complex functions through a single hash. By fully executing the ZK proof process off-chain for a block and verifying the proof on Bitcoin through Taproot, the system ensures the validation of blocks. Additionally, when the block miner on Layer2 sends each block validation transaction, they also submit the hash of the corresponding block data and proof data to Bitcoin. Subsequently, anyone can use relevant hash submitted to Bitcoin to obtain comprehensive data from a specific DA layer for third-party verification of Layer2 blocks.

https://github.com/SatoshiVM/whitepaper/blob/main/README.md

Merely starting the converstion, and to start learning from all of you!

[1714758756]

1714758756

[1714758756]

1714758756

[1714758756]

1714758756

[1714758756]

1714758756

[NotATether]

It looks great, but don't expect Ordinals to go there because nobody is interested in actually developing it, only printing money off of it.

And for a second layer to be successful, it needs an ecosystem around it, which is only possible by quickly gaining adoption.

Whether or not Turing-complete programs are needed for Bitcoin, and by the community, is debatable. But because it's going to be built within its own off-chain network then it shouldn't truly be a problem on-chain.

If it's gonna be off-chain then who's gonna care? Nobody will need to worry about fees and bloat if it's not using precious block space.

[ABCbits]

Do we need another sidechain? Liquid and Rootstock already exist, while Drivechain still in development. In addition, many things available on SatoshiVM already offered by one of those. For now there's little technical detail, so i only say the author should explain why Bitcoiner should use SatoshiVM rather than other sidechain.

[Wind_FURY]

It looks great, but don't expect Ordinals to go there because nobody is interested in actually developing it, only printing money off of it.

And for a second layer to be successful, it needs an ecosystem around it, which is only possible by quickly gaining adoption.

Probably not, but I don't expect the developers who want to actually build something use Ordinals as their main platform for their projects. Perhaps digital artifacts collectors that are willing to pay and want to store their "art" in a bank-vault which is the Bitcoin blockchain. But BRC-20 token ponzis? I believe they will look for something more efficient, convenient, and cheap that will offer more utility.

Whether or not Turing-complete programs are needed for Bitcoin, and by the community, is debatable. But because it's going to be built within its own off-chain network then it shouldn't truly be a problem on-chain.

If it's gonna be off-chain then who's gonna care? Nobody will need to worry about fees and bloat if it's not using precious block space.

That's the point.

[so98nn]

I think we had a similar discussion/solution earlier when we had huge congestion with Bitcoin transactions back when they launched Ordinals for the first time. It dropped a huge burden on the blockchain and made it worse. I am not sure if a similar solution is being posted here or not but in the first instance it seems the same. If we get that solution back again, and create more off-chains (side chains) then it is going to be even worse than that. This is also a similar case when the N-number of projects started rolling on the ERC-20 chain and it was all messy. This is the main reason ETH also started congesting with time. If we repeat the same algorithm for BTC's blockchain then man I couldn't imagine more congestion than what we have right now.

Also, it's not a matter of who cares and who doesn't. It's more or less what would be implications or after-effects on the main blockchain?

[Wind_FURY]

SatoshiVM announced a partnership with a popular Ordinals/BRC-20 "project" called "MultiBit" - Wasn't that the name also used by an early Bitcoin wallet?

That's definitely good for ALL users involved,
https://twitter.com/satoshivm/status/1745762443513454773

Do we need another sidechain? Liquid and Rootstock already exist, while Drivechain still in development. In addition, many things available on SatoshiVM already offered by one of those. For now there's little technical detail, so i only say the author should explain why Bitcoiner should use SatoshiVM rather than other sidechain.

I don't know, that's for the community of users/the market to decide. But what I can be told is, there's demand for Bitcoin block space that could be better pushed out to a off-chain network for more efficiency and functionality. SatoshiVM offers that solution.

[pooya87]

the inefficient method of bringing NFTs and Tokens in Bitcoin through Ordinals

They never did that. Bitcoin protocol does not support Token creation. What they did through Ordinals exploit was to inject arbitrary data into the Bitcoin blockchain.

Do we need another sidechain? Liquid and Rootstock already exist, while Drivechain still in development. In addition, many things available on SatoshiVM already offered by one of those. For now there's little technical detail, so i only say the author should explain why Bitcoiner should use SatoshiVM rather than other sidechain.

Basically this ^
We already had a couple of projects that were more mature than this one, and they all lack popularity simply because token creation lacks popularity and utility! This is why they performed the Ordinals Attack like this instead of taking it to an actual "token platform" like Rootstock for example. They needed the hype to make money and of course to attack bitcoin...

[Wind_FURY]

the inefficient method of bringing NFTs and Tokens in Bitcoin through Ordinals

They never did that. Bitcoin protocol does not support Token creation. What they did through Ordinals exploit was to inject arbitrary data into the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever you call it, it doesn't change the fact that the BRC-20 method of minting tokens is inefficient, expensive and it's very annoying for users who want to use the network for financial transactions.

Do we need another sidechain? Liquid and Rootstock already exist, while Drivechain still in development. In addition, many things available on SatoshiVM already offered by one of those. For now there's little technical detail, so i only say the author should explain why Bitcoiner should use SatoshiVM rather than other sidechain.

Basically this ^

We already had a couple of projects that were more mature than this one,

But no one truly adopted them, and because Bitcoin is permissionless, any developer could build on top of it and try to debate for a better, more efficient solution.

and they all lack popularity simply because token creation lacks popularity and utility! This is why they performed the Ordinals Attack like this instead of taking it to an actual "token platform" like Rootstock for example. They needed the hype to make money and of course to attack bitcoin...

"Lacks popularity", but those users did congest the network, forcing everyone to pay for higher fees if they wanted to make a transaction on-chain.

"Lacks utility", but those users' idea of "utility" or usage IS the making money part of the system.

But we digress, let's talk about technical features of SatoshiVM, the pros/cons, and why/why won't it work.

[javierguajardo]

Probably the best solution to replace the inefficient method of bringing NFTs and Tokens in Bitcoin through Ordinals is an off-chain layer called Rollups, WHICH, will bring Ethereum-style smart contracts and Turing-Completeness. Whether or not Turing-complete programs are needed for Bitcoin, and by the community, is debatable. But because it's going to be built within its own off-chain network then it shouldn't truly be a problem on-chain.

SatoshiVM is a decentralized Bitcoin ZK Rollup Layer2 solution compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) ecosystem, using native BTC as gas. SatoshiVM bridges the EVM ecosystem with Bitcoin, enabling the Bitcoin ecosystem to issue assets and develop applications.

We have improved a method that can verify the correct execution of arbitrary functions on Bitcoin, making it more suitable for Layer2 block validation. Verification System of SatoshiVM is a system that can ensure the accurate execution of Layer2 blocks on Bitcoin. This system does not require any modifications to Bitcoin itself. It is capable of confirming whether a series of Layer2 blocks are executed correctly on Bitcoin without any changes to the existing infrastructure. This allows Bitcoin to serve as a settlement layer for Layer2, enhancing the security of Bitcoin Layer2 transactions.

The system leverages the features of Taproot, which enables the representation of the execution process of a set of complex functions through a single hash. By fully executing the ZK proof process off-chain for a block and verifying the proof on Bitcoin through Taproot, the system ensures the validation of blocks. Additionally, when the block miner on Layer2 sends each block validation transaction, they also submit the hash of the corresponding block data and proof data to Bitcoin. Subsequently, anyone can use relevant hash submitted to Bitcoin to obtain comprehensive data from a specific DA layer for third-party verification of Layer2 blocks.

https://github.com/SatoshiVM/whitepaper/blob/main/README.md

Merely starting the converstion, and to start learning from all of you!

Wow, SatoshiVM is doing some cool stuff!! 🤯 using Bitcoin for Layer2 and connecting with Ethereum? that's kind of mind-blowing!

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Probably the best solution to replace the inefficient method of bringing NFTs and Tokens in Bitcoin through Ordinals is an off-chain layer called Rollups, WHICH, will bring Ethereum-style smart contracts and Turing-Completeness. Whether or not Turing-complete programs are needed for Bitcoin, and by the community, is debatable. But because it's going to be built within its own off-chain network then it shouldn't truly be a problem on-chain.

It will grow to be a new trend but Ordinals will continue to stay on Bitcoin blockchain.

Because they don't need a cheaper blockchain to operate on. They need Bitcoin blockchains to make noise and attract investors to buy their tokens, NFTs. Without Bitcoin blockchain, Ordinals, BRC20 tokens and their inscriptions will have less values, smaller prices like so many available ones on altcoin blockchains.

Bitcoin developers must figure out ways to technically resolve this problem from Ordinals. They can not sit calmly and wait for Ordinals entirely to migrate to SatoshiVM, EVM rollup platforms.

[pooya87]

Bitcoin protocol does not support Token creation. What they did through Ordinals exploit was to inject arbitrary data into the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever you call it, it doesn't change the fact that the BRC-20 method of minting tokens is inefficient, expensive and it's very annoying for users who want to use the network for financial transactions.

Yes, but the bold part needs to be clarified and repeated as many times possible because I see repetition of a similar problem we had in 2017 where people kept spreading misinformation (SegWit "removes" signatures) and years later we are still seeing some who think it is true.
Here BTC-20 is not a method of "minting tokens" it is just a method of spamming the blockchain with arbitrary data.

"Lacks popularity", but those users did congest the network, forcing everyone to pay for higher fees if they wanted to make a transaction on-chain.

"Lacks utility", but those users' idea of "utility" or usage IS the making money part of the system.

But we digress, let's talk about technical features of SatoshiVM, the pros/cons, and why/why won't it work.

Yeah, we should stick to technical discussion but the other stuff is just as important. For example your two first statements here is proving what I said! These spammers see "utility" as making money. To make money they need something that can get hyped up so that people (specially newbies and gamblers) would buy. Making these on some unknown platform whose name is not heard by anyone is not going to give them any hype to pump it. But when they include their junk spam inside bitcoin blockchain, it can get hyped up.

Besides not only Bitcoin side-chains exist but also there are a lot of other token creation platforms that are semi-mature and they are unused because of exactly what I explained (uselessness).

To make matters worse, as long as the exploit in Bitcoin protocol is not patched and these spammers can continue abusing it, they will not even bother looking at alternative solutions...

[ABCbits]

--snip--

Wow, SatoshiVM is doing some cool stuff!! 🤯 using Bitcoin for Layer2 and connecting with Ethereum? that's kind of mind-blowing!

Actually SatoshiVM is the one which act as layer 2, not Bitcoin.

But we digress, let's talk about technical features of SatoshiVM, the pros/cons, and why/why won't it work.

The technical details is limited, so i can't talk about it with certainty. So i'll just point few things,
1. Average block time for testnet 3s[1], it'll create some stale/orphan block. It worry me, even when they state they currently consider block time between 3s to 60s[2].
2. Currently there's no detail how "sequencer" (party who create block) is chosen[2].
3. While we can "move" BTC to SatoshiVM by ourselves[3], i didn't find how to "move" BTC from SatoshiVM to mainnet which is a bit concerning.

[1] https://testnet.svmscan.io/
[2] https://docs.satoshivm.io/satoshivm/rollup-protocol
[3] https://docs.satoshivm.io/user-guide/btc-bridge-testnet

[Wind_FURY]

Bitcoin protocol does not support Token creation. What they did through Ordinals exploit was to inject arbitrary data into the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever you call it, it doesn't change the fact that the BRC-20 method of minting tokens is inefficient, expensive and it's very annoying for users who want to use the network for financial transactions.

Yes, but the bold part needs to be clarified and repeated as many times possible because I see repetition of a similar problem we had in 2017 where people kept spreading misinformation (SegWit "removes" signatures) and years later we are still seeing some who think it is true.

Here BTC-20 is not a method of "minting tokens" it is just a method of spamming the blockchain with arbitrary data.

I'm not disproving your point, nor am I disallowing you from having an opinion. But you have already expressed the same thing many times in different topics. I'm sorry, but it's becoming like a broken record.

"Lacks popularity", but those users did congest the network, forcing everyone to pay for higher fees if they wanted to make a transaction on-chain.

"Lacks utility", but those users' idea of "utility" or usage IS the making money part of the system.

But we digress, let's talk about technical features of SatoshiVM, the pros/cons, and why/why won't it work.

Yeah, we should stick to technical discussion but the other stuff is just as important. For example your two first statements here is proving what I said! These spammers see "utility" as making money. To make money they need something that can get hyped up so that people (specially newbies and gamblers) would buy. Making these on some unknown platform whose name is not heard by anyone is not going to give them any hype to pump it. But when they include their junk spam inside bitcoin blockchain, it can get hyped up.

Besides not only Bitcoin side-chains exist but also there are a lot of other token creation platforms that are semi-mature and they are unused because of exactly what I explained (uselessness).

To make matters worse, as long as the exploit in Bitcoin protocol is not patched and these spammers can continue abusing it, they will not even bother looking at alternative solutions...

That's probably why it's an opportunity for some developers to build a more efficient solution that will be a win-win both for users who want BRC-20/NFTs, AND users who want cheap on-chain transactions.

Paying for high fees is simply not sustainable for ALL users because Bitcoins are scarce.

But we digress, let's talk about technical features of SatoshiVM, the pros/cons, and why/why won't it work.

The technical details is limited, so i can't talk about it with certainty. So i'll just point few things,

1. Average block time for testnet 3s[1], it'll create some stale/orphan block. It worry me, even when they state they currently consider block time between 3s to 60s[2].

2. Currently there's no detail how "sequencer" (party who create block) is chosen[2].

It will probably be centralized/federated at first, then decentralize ln due course.

3. While we can "move" BTC to SatoshiVM by ourselves[3], i didn't find how to "move" BTC from SatoshiVM to mainnet which is a bit concerning.

[1] https://testnet.svmscan.io/
[2] https://docs.satoshivm.io/satoshivm/rollup-protocol
[3] https://docs.satoshivm.io/user-guide/btc-bridge-testnet

It will probably through an off-chain Bitcoin to on-chain Bitcoin market of some sort?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[n0nce]

It looks great, but don't expect Ordinals to go there because nobody is interested in actually developing it, only printing money off of it.

And for a second layer to be successful, it needs an ecosystem around it, which is only possible by quickly gaining adoption.

I'm sad that RGB & Taro don't see as much popularity as the Ordinals or other projects. I found the RGB protocol very promising when I discovered it a bunch of years ago.
Lightning is well suited for this type of stuff and it already exists. I'm all for innovation, but I'm also all for not reinventing the wheel and for using time & resources (this includes the Bitcoin blockchain) in a responsible way.

[Wind_FURY]

It looks great, but don't expect Ordinals to go there because nobody is interested in actually developing it, only printing money off of it.

And for a second layer to be successful, it needs an ecosystem around it, which is only possible by quickly gaining adoption.

I'm sad that RGB & Taro don't see as much popularity as the Ordinals or other projects. I found the RGB protocol very promising when I discovered it a bunch of years ago.

Lightning is well suited for this type of stuff and it already exists. I'm all for innovation, but I'm also all for not reinventing the wheel and for using time & resources (this includes the Bitcoin blockchain) in a responsible way.

I didn't care at all before for off-chain layers built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain except for the Lightning Network. But experiencing how annoying Ordinals NFT and BRC-20 have been, I believe there's this expectation from their users that paying for high fees is "normal" to participate. BUT there's such a thing as capital and technical efficiency, and RGB, Taro, SatoshiVM, or another off-chain solution will definitely start gaining some attention from developers/users who are actually trying to find a cheaper solution for token minting/trading.

NFTs and "digital artifacts" users might prefer the security of the Bitcoin blockchain though, and would not care for the high fees.

[ABCbits]

2. Currently there's no detail how "sequencer" (party who create block) is chosen[2].

It will probably be centralized/federated at first, then decentralize ln due course.

The documentation already state SatoshiVM currnetly is the only one who create block. I was referring about how decentralized one works.

3. While we can "move" BTC to SatoshiVM by ourselves[3], i didn't find how to "move" BTC from SatoshiVM to mainnet which is a bit concerning.

It will probably through an off-chain Bitcoin to on-chain Bitcoin market of some sort?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Using exchange/market works, but it should be done by interesting with SatoshiVM directly.

[Wind_FURY]

2. Currently there's no detail how "sequencer" (party who create block) is chosen[2].

It will probably be centralized/federated at first, then decentralize ln due course.

The documentation already state SatoshiVM currnetly is the only one who create block. I was referring about how decentralized one works.

My hypothesis, it will be Proof Of Stake. Because these " decentralized networks" outside of Bitcoin generally issue "tokens", I believe SatoshiVM will issue one of its own, then have those sequencers "stake" their "tokens", and their users delegate their own "tokens".

I will not open a debate on why Proof Of Stake is flawed. That deserves its own topic.

3. While we can "move" BTC to SatoshiVM by ourselves[3], i didn't find how to "move" BTC from SatoshiVM to mainnet which is a bit concerning.

It will probably through an off-chain Bitcoin to on-chain Bitcoin market of some sort?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Using exchange/market works, but it should be done by interesting with SatoshiVM directly.

We're merely looking at the test-net. I believe there will be a two-way bridge for official release.

[NotATether]

It looks great, but don't expect Ordinals to go there because nobody is interested in actually developing it, only printing money off of it.

And for a second layer to be successful, it needs an ecosystem around it, which is only possible by quickly gaining adoption.

I'm sad that RGB & Taro don't see as much popularity as the Ordinals or other projects. I found the RGB protocol very promising when I discovered it a bunch of years ago.
Lightning is well suited for this type of stuff and it already exists. I'm all for innovation, but I'm also all for not reinventing the wheel and for using time & resources (this includes the Bitcoin blockchain) in a responsible way.

But you can use Taproot Assets in dashboards like LNbits and ThunderHub, right? At least I remember seeing an option to interact with them.

As far as Ordinals goes, the only people making integrations for it are exchanges and stupid Opensea clone marketplaces. With the exception of the canonical Ordinals client (ord), open-source development of Ordinals is practically non-existant.

[d5000]

Do we need another sidechain? Liquid and Rootstock already exist, while Drivechain still in development.

I think the crucial difference is the way how the sidechain would be to be implemented, according to the information available until now in the whitepaper.

SatoshiVM is thought to be a rollup, this means it's not a completely independent sidechain but rather a method to bundle transactions so they occupy less space on L1 (but regularly injecting data on L1).

RSK and Liquid are currently federated, but afaik their goal is not to use rollup technology but eventually become completely independent sidechains with 2-way pegs, so apart from the deposit/withdrawal transactions, no information has to be stored on L1. This is of course a much more ambitious goal. RSK was originally aiming for the Drivechain 2-way peg mechanism, but they have recently moved more in the direction of a dynamic federation, as already operational on Nomic. Drivechain seems to be still in testing stage but its big problem is that it requires new Bitcoin opcodes.

I am however also a bit disappointed about the lacking level of detail of the technical explanations for SatoshiVM. While there are some docs available, they don't explain the really critical points (above all: which kind of (Taproot) script is used on BTC to block coins which are currently living on the sidechain until a withdrawal takes place?) This could be seen even as a kind of red flag. Another red flag could be the planned token distribution, which looks very much like an average ICO and thus very centralized. At its very least, it looks like a very early-stage project, even if there seems to be an usable Testnet app.

Anyway it's worthy to follow its evolution over time.

[dkbit98]

Finally we have Gas on Bitcoin! 
I don't think this will move all ordinals spam from main chain to this new satoshiVM, but I am sure second layer solutions will grow and compete in future, so let the best ones win.
Problem with all this solutions can be potential bugs and flaws with code, this is all uncharted territory, but I see satoshiVM has a lot of transactions and activity on testnet:
https://testnet.svmscan.io/stats

I'm sad that RGB & Taro don't see as much popularity as the Ordinals or other projects. I found the RGB protocol very promising when I discovered it a bunch of years ago.

I think I saw that RGB is going to work with Liquid Network, and that is gaining more attention with new Aqua wallet that supports both LN and main chain along with Liquid.