Satoshi Scoop Weekly, 21 November 2025
🍨 Your weekly bite of the latest updates from the Bitcoin tech ecosystem!

Search for a command to run...
🍨 Your weekly bite of the latest updates from the Bitcoin tech ecosystem!

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.
Take a bite out of the latest weekly updates in the Bitcoin ecosystem. We've got the scoop on what's cooking in the blockchain kitchen. All things #POW and #UTXO.
🍨 不可错过的每周比特币技术生态速览!
🍨 Your weekly bite of the latest updates from the Bitcoin tech ecosystem!

🍨 不可错过的每周比特币技术生态速览

🍨 Your weekly bite of the latest updates from the Bitcoin tech ecosystem!

🍨 不可错过的每周比特币技术生态速览

🍨 Your weekly bite of the latest updates from the Bitcoin tech ecosystem!

On this page
Bitcoin developer Tadge Dryja proposed the idea of OP_CIV (OP_CHECKINPUTVERIFY) to implement a post-quantum version of Cross-Input Signature Aggregation (CISA). Dryja noted that traditional CISA provides limited savings for elliptic curve signatures, but in post-quantum schemes, signatures can be several thousand bytes (especially for SPHINCS+, Dilithium), occupying over 90% of a transaction. The basic idea of OP_CIV is: A transaction input can prove its relation to another input in the same transaction, and by pointing to another input to say "that's the signature I'm using", without providing one of its own, thereby reducing witness data costs. The proposal is still in the conceptual stage and waiting for community feedback.
Related talk.
A proposal suggests adding an opcode OP_STARK_VERIFY to Bitcoin Tapscript for verifying bounded-size STARK proofs. Its goal is to validate zero-knowledge proofs on-chain while maintaining transparency and post-quantum security assumptions, without relying on temporary script encoding (like OP_CAT) or introducing numerous arithmetic opcodes. Current discussions show cautious or negative responses. Critics argue that while STARKs are mature and widely deployed (e.g., in Starknet), embedding them in Bitcoin’s consensus layer may conflict with its core principles: simplicity, security, and long-term stability. Key risks include:
The proposal suggests keeping such complex mechanisms at higher layers or considering introducing general, composable primitives rather than monolithic, application-specific solutions.
Bitcoin pioneer Nick Szabo posted that anarcho-capitalism, as an abstract ideal, inspires innovation and motivated his involvement in the invention of cryptocurrency. However, in reality, cryptocurrencies are not trustless but rather trust-minimized. Bitcoin and similar layer-1 protocols can withstand more interference than centralized systems but still have technical and legal boundaries.
He also pointed out that past legal risks from the financial sector were relatively manageable due to trust-minimized design and the presence of lawyers familiar with financial law. Arbitrary data, however, introduces larger, harder-to-predict legal attack surface, and the crypto industry lacks sufficient legal expertise to handle it. He warned that imagining Bitcoin or any blockchain as a “Swiss Army knife” resistant to all government legal actions is insanity.
Starknet, in Bitcoin’s DeFi Domain, discussed its transition into a BTCFi hub and sustainable DeFi layer for Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin L2s emerged in 2023, BTCFi profits mainly came from token-incentivized liquidity programs, encouraging users to “park” funds in underutilized pools for rewards. Such incentives-based programs are unsustainable due to:
Starknet proposed dual-staked rollups to address these issues, positioning itself as a sustainable DeFi layer for Bitcoin—where BTC can be actively used in economic activity, not just temporarily incentivized.
A research team recently proposed a DoS-resilient dispute layer for Bitcoin—BATTLE for Bitcoin to enhance the security of optimistic cross-chain bridges connecting Bitcoin with rollups or sidechains. The protocol adapts the BATTLE tournament protocol to Bitcoin’s UTXO model, using BitVM-style FLEX components and garbled circuits, combined with on-demand L1 security bonds. Disputes are resolved in logarithmic rounds while recycling rewards, keeping the honest asserter's minimum initial capital constant even under many permissionless challengers. The construction is fully contestable (challengers can supply higher-work counter-proofs) and relies only on standard timelocks and pre-signed transaction DAGs, without new opcodes.
For N operators, the protocol requires O(N²) pre-signed transactions, signatures, and message exchanges, but remains practical for N ≳ 10³, achieving high decentralization.
Vega is a zero-knowledge proof system that proves statements about existing credentials without revealing anything else. For a 1920-byte credential without trusted setup, Vega achieves 212 ms proving time, 51 ms verification time, 150 kB proofs, and a 436 kB proving key. Its efficiency relies on two principles: fold-and-reuse proving and lookup-centric arithmetization.
Check out the paper Vega: Low-Latency Zero-Knowledge Proofs over Existing Credentials.
a16z introduced a new token taxonomy covering seven categories, including network tokens, collectibles, and memecoins. One underappreciated but potentially promising category is the Arcade Tokens: tokens with relatively stable value within a specific software or product ecosystem, typically managed by the issuer (e.g., a company).
These tokens are essentially blockchain versions of familiar assets like airline miles, credit card points, or game currencies—internal currencies maintaining a closed or semi-closed economy. Traditionally, these operated on centralized databases, limiting user ownership, transferability, and user choice. On-chain, arcade tokens become open, interoperable, and composable, unlocking richer market design possibilities.