How are teams implementing BitVM2 - and is it the final form of trustless Bitcoin bridging? 🟠 At House of ZK’s @Bitcoin Economy Conference, experts shared how their BitVM2 implementations differ, debated tradeoffs, and gave a sneak peek into BitVM3 and garbled circuits. Featuring: 🔹 @robin_linus, Creator of BitVM 🔹 @sd_eigen, Core Contributor at @GOATRollup 🔹 @AlpacaYovela, Co-founder of @fiamma_labs 🔹 @PimaBTC, Head of Ecosystem at @BimaBTC 🔹 @trackoor, Co-founder of @nubit_org 🔹 @nikki_sunset, Ecosystem Growth Lead at @build_on_bob BitVM2 implementations are diverging - but teams are aligning around shared tooling and SNARK verifiers. Also available on YouTube:

Key takeaways from the panel “Differences in BitVM2 Implementations - and is BitVM2 the Final Form?” at House of ZK’s @Bitcoin Economy Conference 👇 1️⃣ Design Divergence: • @fiamma_labs: 1-click BTC bridge + off-chain challenge mechanism • @GOATRollup: Decentralized sequencer + VRF-based challenge selection • @build_on_bob: Uses Babylon staking to checkpoint state to Bitcoin for finality • @nubit_org: Formal verification tools & dev-friendly DSL 2️⃣ Optimization Paths: • Everyone wants to shrink ~4MB assert/proof txs • BitVM3 leverages garbled circuits to drastically compress proofs - cutting tx size by ~1000x vs BitVM1, but at the cost of more complex challenger coordination and encoding logic • But garbled circuits adds complexity, especially around challenger setup 3️⃣ Trust Assumptions: • Tradeoffs: offloading data to @ethereum vs staying BTC-native • Some L2s still rely on permissioned validators or fragile light clients for proof verification 4️⃣ Fragmentation vs Alignment: • Each L2 needs custom bridge logic • BitVM Alliance unifies core SNARK verifier • BitVM is early, not final - but alignment around SNARK-based verification is accelerating