From: "Nuh.dev" <ar.nazeh@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Fly Client Proposal
Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 02:56:11 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8e069e17-c819-4c30-b4d7-917b9561813bn@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOsDwYYw7bfRdfr5AsPWM1WmN7BePrvYDRQ2WRWhNpVcDHeo+A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3295 bytes --]
To make a counter argument to mine, and assuming Bitcoin soft forks are not
impossible, FlyClient has an advantage that is impossible to replicate with
ZK proofs; they are simple enough that one can reason about and implement
from scratch similar to implementing an SPV, whereas formally proving ZK
Starks end to end is very unlikely to happen any time soon, and reviewing
all of its complexity is impossible for any single mortal.
The same argument applies for validating Sidechains by the way, you can use
a ZK proof, but I am increasingly thinking that a FlyClient verifier native
in Bitcoin as an opcode, is orders of magnitude safer and easier to
implement.
So I encourage you and everyone to not give up on FlyClient in Bitcoin yet.
On Tuesday, 19 May 2026 at 00:07:54 UTC+3 Zac Mitton wrote:
> Ok, Let's keep this thread about Flyclient on Bitcoin. The challenges
> related to actually getting a soft-fork into bitcoin are best discussed
> elsewhere.
>
> If anyone has information related to progress on this,
> or implementation ideas please help by posting here or DMing me. I will try
> to aggregate.
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 12:26 PM Tom Harding <to...@thinlink.com> wrote:
>
>> Zac,
>>
>> That's probably because the question, and my post, are off-topic. They
>> are not about FlyClient, which is not interesting to me because bitcoin's
>> header chain is tiny.
>>
>> Instead they touch on two techniques which would improve on most
>> historical implementations of SPV clients by adding protocol support for
>> them.
>>
>> Sorry for the distraction.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> On 5/3/26 12:26, Zac Mitton wrote:
>>
>> Tom I can’t seem to grok the question or your explanation of it. Could
>> you spell it out for us in detail?
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Zac
>>
>> On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 12:58 PM Tom Harding <to...@thinlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the linked presentation by Benedict Bünz, it's worth listening to the
>>> first audience question/answer. Questioner is spot on that an SPV client
>>> polling the network to gain probabilistic confidence of unspentness could
>>> easily subsume the task of gaining input inclusion proofs from the network,
>>> with no forking change necessary.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 29, 2026 at 2:03:36 PM UTC-7 Zac Mitton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Ive been looking into FlyClient first described here
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPNs9EVxWrA&t=8386s>. I don't see any
>>>> BIPs, or previous discussion in this forum about it either.
>>>>
>>>> On bitcoin It could allow a light-client to verify the entire work of
>>>> the heaviest chain with a single ~100KB proof.
>>>>
>>>> It can theoretically be done as a soft-fork by injecting a single hash
>>>> into the coinbase tx (similar to how segwit is committed to).
>>>>
>>>> What do you guy's think?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
--
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/8e069e17-c819-4c30-b4d7-917b9561813bn%40googlegroups.com.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5762 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-21 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-29 21:00 [bitcoindev] Fly Client Proposal Zac Mitton
2026-04-30 18:52 ` [bitcoindev] " Super Testnet
2026-05-01 8:42 ` Nuh.dev
2026-05-02 19:23 ` Zac Mitton
2026-05-02 21:24 ` Nuh.dev
2026-05-03 16:56 ` Tom Harding
[not found] ` <CAOsDwYbfZXKe_dcNoL_t2DSrWokUXC2OJh33J8=CDHmO=n3AhA@mail.gmail.com>
2026-05-04 16:26 ` Tom Harding
2026-05-04 22:34 ` Zac Mitton
2026-05-21 9:56 ` Nuh.dev [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8e069e17-c819-4c30-b4d7-917b9561813bn@googlegroups.com \
--to=ar.nazeh@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox