Every new Bitcoin node is asked to perform an almost absurd ritual.
It joins the network in 2026. Then it goes back to January 2009. Block by block. Transaction by transaction. Rule by rule.
It reconstructs Bitcoin’s history from the beginning, checking that the chain it sees today really follows from the genesis block Satoshi Nakamoto mined more than seventeen years ago.
That repetition is not a bug. It is one of Bitcoin’s most important security properties.
You don’t ask someone else whether Bitcoin’s history is valid.
You verify it yourself.
But what if there were another way?
What if somebody could perform that enormous computation once, create a cryptographic proof that the computation was executed correctly, and then allow millions of other machines to verify that proof in milliseconds?
Not a trusted snapshot. Not a blockchain explorer saying, “Trust me.” Not a committee. Not a federation.
A mathematical proof.
And here’s where this story becomes much more interesting.
A developer has now demonstrated something Bitcoin researchers have been chasing for years:
Running Bitcoin Core’s actual consensus code inside a zero-knowledge virtual machine and producing STARK proofs from it.
Not a rewritten interpretation of Bitcoin. Not a simplified Bitcoin verification circuit. Actual pieces of Bitcoin Core.
If this approach survives review, optimization, and adversarial testing, it could eventually change one of the oldest assumptions about running a Bitcoin node.
The future of Bitcoin verification may not require every new computer to repeat seventeen years of computation.
It may require checking the proof of someone who already did. And checking that proof could take milliseconds.
Imagine that 100,000 people are given the same gigantic mathematical problem.
The first person solves it. Then the second person refuses to trust the first person and solves it again. Then the third. Then the fourth.
Eventually all 100,000 people have performed essentially the same computation and reached the same conclusion.
From a conventional computing perspective, this sounds ridiculously inefficient.
From Bitcoin’s perspective, this is sovereignty.
When you start a fully validating node, you are deliberately refusing to outsource truth.
Your node obtains Bitcoin’s history and applies the consensus rules necessary to determine which blocks belong to a valid chain.
Bitcoin Core’s default synchronization process does contain optimizations such as assumevalid
, meaning it doesn’t blindly redo every historical signature check under normal settings. But the fundamental principle remains unchanged: your node independently reconstructs and validates enough of Bitcoin’s history and state to arrive at today’s UTXO set without trusting another node’s declaration that the chain is valid.
That is beautiful. It is also expensive.
Bitcoin is no longer the tiny experiment Satoshi launched in 2009.
The blockchain has accumulated seventeen years of blocks, transactions, signatures, and state transitions.
And every year the historical burden grows.
What the new experiment asks is deceptively simple:
Does every future Bitcoin user really need to perform that work again?
Or can cryptography allow one computer to prove that it performed the work correctly, while another computer verifies the result vastly faster?
That is the basic promise of succinct validity proofs.
The concept itself isn’t new.
What happened this month is more interesting.
Researchers have tried to build proofs of Bitcoin validation before.
The obvious approach looks something like this:
Take Bitcoin’s rules.
Translate them into a language suitable for a zero-knowledge proof system.
Build a circuit representing those rules.
Run Bitcoin blocks through that circuit.
Produce a proof.
Problem solved.
Except there is a terrifying question hiding inside that architecture:
Did you reproduce Bitcoin’s rules perfectly?
Bitcoin does not have some immaculate 50-page mathematical specification from which every implementation is mechanically generated.
In practice, Bitcoin Core’s behavior matters enormously.
Consensus is full of historical edge cases, activation conditions, script behavior, and obscure details accumulated during more than seventeen years of operation.
Reimplement one detail incorrectly and your beautiful zero-knowledge proof could mathematically prove the wrong version of Bitcoin.
The proof system might be flawless. The circuit might be wrong.
This is the nightmare of proving consensus through a separate implementation.
You are effectively creating a second interpretation of Bitcoin and then asking everyone to believe that interpretation behaves exactly like Bitcoin Core.
The developer behind the new project, called ** Hazync**, decided to attack the problem from another direction.
Instead of translating Bitcoin Core into a new consensus circuit:
Why not run Bitcoin Core itself?
That is the breakthrough worth paying attention to.
Big Tech’s AI boom goes far beyond capex — trillions in future commitments are turning the AI race into a massive balance-sheet test.
**The Hazync experiment compiles consensus-related code from Bitcoin Core v28 for **riscv32im
** and executes it inside the RISC Zero zkVM.**
That includes real Bitcoin Core components such as VerifyScript
, SignatureHash
, transaction checking, Merkle-tree logic, difficulty-retarget calculations, and the actual libsecp256k1
cryptographic library used for ECDSA and Schnorr verification.
Think about what that means.
Normally, a zero-knowledge virtual machine allows a program to execute and then produce a cryptographic receipt proving that the program ran correctly.
The person checking the receipt doesn’t need to rerun the entire program.
The expensive side is proving.
The cheap side is verifying.
Hazync applies that model to Bitcoin block validation.
Feed the zkVM a Bitcoin block and the required state information. Bitcoin Core’s consensus logic executes inside the proving environment.
The machine checks proof of work.
It checks the previous block relationship. It reconstructs the Merkle root. It verifies transaction scripts. It checks signatures. It checks block weight. It checks coinbase maturity. It checks subsidy and fees. It performs the state transition between the previous UTXO commitment and the new one.
Then the system produces a cryptographic receipt attesting that those conditions held.
The result isn’t:
“I checked this block. Trust me.”
It is closer to:
“Here is cryptographic evidence that this specific program executed these rules successfully over these inputs.”
That distinction is enormous.
Proving one Bitcoin block is interesting. Proving Bitcoin is a different problem.
Bitcoin isn’t one block. It is a chain.
Block 900,000 means nothing without block 899,999. And block 899,999 ultimately means nothing unless the chain connecting it back toward genesis is valid.
Hazync therefore tries to fold proofs together.
Imagine separate proofs:
Block 1 is valid.
Block 2 is valid.
Block 3 is valid.
Block 4 is valid.
Instead of handing someone 900,000+ independent receipts, those receipts can be recursively combined.
Proofs covering blocks 1 and 2 become a range proof.
Blocks 3 and 4 become another.
Those ranges combine again.
Continue recursively, and the destination is extraordinary:
One compact cryptographic artifact representing validity from genesis to a recent Bitcoin block.
The project calls the genesis-anchored proof the spine.
In principle, a verifier doesn’t need to replay every block represented inside it.
The verifier checks the proof.
The expensive historical computation has been compressed into an artifact whose verification cost does not grow linearly with seventeen years of Bitcoin history.
This is where the idea stops sounding like a technical curiosity.
Because it changes how we could think about Bitcoin synchronization.
