Binance Square
#bitvm3

bitvm3

1,466 views
7 Discussing
Doraemon
·
--
Partly True
At first I assumed the off-chain cost of BitVM3 vaults was mostly a storage problem. 43GB per garbled circuit, generated for every counterparty, sounded like the kind of thing that just gets more expensive as usage grows. But the more I looked, the amortization model caught my attention. Circuits aren't generated per deposit. They're generated once per counterparty, because a failed challenge removes that party from the system entirely — an operator who loses a challenge is disqualified from future withdrawals, a challenger who loses forfeits the right to challenge again. So the cost curve flattens naturally, but only because the penalty for cheating is permanent exclusion, not a fine or a slashing event you can recover from. That's a strong assumption to build scaling around. It works cleanly in a two-party lending pair. It's less obvious how it holds once you're amortizing across whitelisted liquidators, large lenders, and rotating operator sets, where "permanently excluded" starts needing its own coordination layer. Maybe that's simply the cost of making the off-chain side cheap. So the real question isn't whether the storage cost falls. It's who tracks exclusion, and how. #bitcoin #BitVM3 #DeFi $BABY @babylonlabs_io #baby $BTC @bitcoin #BTC {spot}(BTCUSDT) {spot}(BABYUSDT)
At first I assumed the off-chain cost of BitVM3 vaults was mostly a storage problem. 43GB per garbled circuit, generated for every counterparty, sounded like the kind of thing that just gets more expensive as usage grows. But the more I looked, the amortization model caught my attention. Circuits aren't generated per deposit. They're generated once per counterparty, because a failed challenge removes that party from the system entirely — an operator who loses a challenge is disqualified from future withdrawals, a challenger who loses forfeits the right to challenge again. So the cost curve flattens naturally, but only because the penalty for cheating is permanent exclusion, not a fine or a slashing event you can recover from. That's a strong assumption to build scaling around. It works cleanly in a two-party lending pair. It's less obvious how it holds once you're amortizing across whitelisted liquidators, large lenders, and rotating operator sets, where "permanently excluded" starts needing its own coordination layer. Maybe that's simply the cost of making the off-chain side cheap. So the real question isn't whether the storage cost falls. It's who tracks exclusion, and how.
#bitcoin #BitVM3 #DeFi $BABY @BabylonLabs_io #baby $BTC
@Bitcoin #BTC
Rafayet Official:
Maybe that's simply the cost of making the off-chain side cheap
·
--
Bearish
Most people in BitVM3 debates focus on one improvement - you save on proof costs! At least, that's what I initially believed when I first started thinking about it. After seeing more and more about how @babylonlabs_io is architected, I started to see the impact is more than just economics; it's behavioral too. When it becomes less expensive to prove you've been cheated on, it also becomes cheaper to challenge dishonest people and bad actors - a shift in incentive throughout the system. It's less secure because verification is efficient and more secure because challenging the current truth has become less of an economic burden, and this became my sticking point. These lower costs on proof don't just save on compute. It saves on accountability, costs! You save on friction between accountability. A more healthy system: A security model where the honest guys can actually take action without collateralizing their assets, and less so a model where you essentially have to mortgage your house on orders to contest the current truth. You still have risk, this isn't saying that BitVM3 doesn't need cryptographic assumptions and to be built properly; etc., etc. You also can't test it in real world under an attack; but hey, you could argue that that makes sense. That puts another big question to everyone - is verification more security boosting than a rise in costs for you to attack? Babydoge 🐶 $BABY $ESPORTS $LAB {future}(BABYUSDT) #baby #bitcoin #BitVM3 #blockchain #Research #BinanceSquare
Most people in BitVM3 debates focus on one improvement - you save on proof costs! At least, that's what I initially believed when I first started thinking about it. After seeing more and more about how @BabylonLabs_io is architected, I started to see the impact is more than just economics; it's behavioral too.

When it becomes less expensive to prove you've been cheated on, it also becomes cheaper to challenge dishonest people and bad actors - a shift in incentive throughout the system. It's less secure because verification is efficient and more secure because challenging the current truth has become less of an economic burden, and this became my sticking point.

These lower costs on proof don't just save on compute. It saves on accountability, costs! You save on friction between accountability.

A more healthy system: A security model where the honest guys can actually take action without collateralizing their assets, and less so a model where you essentially have to mortgage your house on orders to contest the current truth.

You still have risk, this isn't saying that BitVM3 doesn't need cryptographic assumptions and to be built properly; etc., etc. You also can't test it in real world under an attack; but hey, you could argue that that makes sense. That puts another big question to everyone - is verification more security boosting than a rise in costs for you to attack? Babydoge 🐶

$BABY $ESPORTS $LAB

#baby #bitcoin #BitVM3 #blockchain #Research #BinanceSquare
AI agents are really getting more and more powerful these days. They don’t just chat anymore—they can browse the web on their own, subscribe to services, call interfaces, and even do business with other AIs. But here’s the question— When machines trade with machines, what do they use to build trust❓️ Humans can rely on laws, word of mouth, and brands. But AIs can’t—they can’t sue, and they can’t truly verify whether the other party is reliable. So the only thing you can truly trust is cryptographic verification, using math proofs to show “this really was done correctly.” And the blockchain that’s currently most suitable to serve as that final safety vault is Bitcoin. It has the strongest security and the most neutrality. But Bitcoin itself can’t verify complex computations. That’s where @GOATNetwork comes in. Using BitVM3 technology, it enables Bitcoin to serve as a backstop for the correctness of off-chain computations, thereby running a truly zkEVM secured by Bitcoin. In plain terms, GOAT Network is an intelligent contract environment built on top of Bitcoin—specifically designed for business between AI agents. AI agents can buy things, book services, pay API fees, and transfer funds to each other all on it, with the security baseline directly protected by Bitcoin. GOAT Network also supports a builder grant program, encouraging everyone to build real agent applications that can generate transactions. There are already profitable products starting from a 2000 USD grant, and for projects with high potential, funding up to 1,000,000 USD. Builder program application link: https://www.goat.network/builder-program?nocache #GOATNetwork #BitVM3 #BTC #AI #AIAgents
AI agents are really getting more and more powerful these days.
They don’t just chat anymore—they can browse the web on their own, subscribe to services, call interfaces, and even do business with other AIs.

But here’s the question—
When machines trade with machines, what do they use to build trust❓️

Humans can rely on laws, word of mouth, and brands.
But AIs can’t—they can’t sue, and they can’t truly verify whether the other party is reliable.

So the only thing you can truly trust is cryptographic verification, using math proofs to show “this really was done correctly.”

And the blockchain that’s currently most suitable to serve as that final safety vault is Bitcoin.
It has the strongest security and the most neutrality.

But Bitcoin itself can’t verify complex computations.

That’s where @GOATNetwork comes in.

Using BitVM3 technology, it enables Bitcoin to serve as a backstop for the correctness of off-chain computations,
thereby running a truly zkEVM secured by Bitcoin.

In plain terms,
GOAT Network is an intelligent contract environment built on top of Bitcoin—specifically designed for business between AI agents.

AI agents can buy things, book services, pay API fees, and transfer funds to each other all on it, with the security baseline directly protected by Bitcoin.

GOAT Network also supports a builder grant program, encouraging everyone to build real agent applications that can generate transactions.

There are already profitable products starting from a 2000 USD grant, and for projects with high potential, funding up to 1,000,000 USD.

Builder program application link: https://www.goat.network/builder-program?nocache

#GOATNetwork #BitVM3 #BTC #AI #AIAgents
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number