really happy with how this has turned out this update makes writing reviews easier for researchers and gives users more information on specific two-way pegs and bitcoin l2s it also gives us a clearer path towards standards related to protocol disclosures as we need some form of proof-of-reserves to be able to do this analysis long way to go, but a step in the right direction making bitcoin layers are verifiable for developers and everyday users

🚨 BitcoinFi State of the Union X Space 🚨 ⏲️ Thursday, Aug 21 | 10am PST · 5pm UTC We’re bringing together leading voices in Bitcoin-native finance to explore what’s next. Guest: 🎙️ @0xCryptoSam from @MessariCrypto 🎙️ @BTC_Mick from the @BTCFiNetwork 🎙️ @januszg_ from @BitcoinLayers Hosted by Maestro's @davis_rich Where is BitcoinFi headed? Don’t miss it. Set your reminder 👇

NEW PANEL ANNOUNCEMENT 🔥 Go behind the scenes of BitVM’s architecture! August 28 • Genesis Stage 🇭🇰

TUNE IN THIS FRIDAY 🎙️‼️ 𝕏 Spaces: We're Not Breaking Bitcoin: The Case for CTV + CSFS | Feat. Janusz, Evan Kaloudis, Owen Kemeys, Shinobi, & Juan Galt RSVP & join the discussion 🧵👇

lombard (@Lombard_Finance) has a proof-of-reserve implementation but it's cumbersome to verify if these reserve addresses are in fact staking in babylon so i did some stuff to make that easier for people summary:

as bitvm bridges are launching on mainnet, i've started looking into their potential implementation of security councils icydk, security councils are multisigs that can spend funds out of a given bridge instance in case of emergency. a consequence of this implementation is that we also trust the signers to not be malicious and steal funds from the bridge these types of (temporary) measures will exist as bitvm-based bridges come to market to verify their existence, we need to collaborate with bridge participants as we can't verify the entirety of the scripts unless they're used to spend funds onchain thankfully though, with the help of @ekrembal_ and the @citrea_xyz team, i was able to create a way to verify the spending paths for a specific BitVM testnet instance. including the security council set up this post is a summary of this process and other discussions i've had with numerous teams building bitvm-based bridges i personally view security councils as a temporary, necessary evil as these systems come to market but, i also believe that we should help users verify all trust assumptions related to bridge implementations the post suggests a few solutions. but, it'd be great to get feedback from those building in the space to determine the best path forward

this now works for bitvm bridges

we now have a script analyzer working for bitvm bridges

Some tooling be built for @BitcoinLayers. We now have a tool where you can insert a TxID and it generates a breakdown of the script used to spend a UTXO. It then auto-populates a given layers' review with a verified Script if its related to a bridge program.