Running digital cash

Aztec
1

I’m working on an experimental digital cash protocol built around a state-only model: there is no global transaction history to observe or analyze. The system maintains consensus only over the current state root, while all transfers are validated via cryptographic proofs of correct state transitions. Privacy is achieved conceptually by removing history as an object, not by obscuring it.

Each account maintains a balance, a monotonic counter, and a cryptographic commitment linked to the global state root. Transfers prove correctness of local state updates (balance, counter, root linkage) without revealing transaction paths or reconstructable flows. A minimal, per-account numeric history exists only to validate state correctness, not to expose relationships.

I’m currently interested in discussing ZK constructions suitable for this model: efficient state-transition proofs, handling double-spend prevention without transaction graphs, and practical choices between Plonk-style SNARKs, Halo2, or alternative approaches. Any thoughts on circuit design, constraint minimization, or known pitfalls in similar architectures would be greatly appreciated.

This is a research-driven, open-source protocol, not a commercial product. I’m primarily looking for critique, ideas, and pointers to existing work I might have missed.

2 Likes
2

I have been analyzing your proposal on this forum. As an active validator for Aztec and Ethereum, I see that you are attempting to close the circle that Satoshi left open. The transition from “Digital Gold”—understood today as a tool for long-term wealth accumulation in Bitcoin—toward a true Digital Cash focused on transactional freedom and daily payment use, requires more than just ZK-SNARKs; it requires Genesis Block Sovereignty.

Here are my critical points for this protocol to truly become the successor to the 2008 vision:

  • Issuance Legitimacy (Fair Launch): If there is a single pre-mined satoshi or a VC pre-sale, this is not digital cash; it is just another financial asset under centralized control. Legitimacy emanates from an immaculate origin: no pre-mine, no companies behind it, only code delivered to the network.

  • Mining Simplicity and Decentralization: To prevent capture by large pools or ASIC farms, the mining and validation software must be “one-click.” The technical barrier to entry must be non-existent so that any user with standard hardware can participate from home.

  • Post-Quantum Immunity (PQC): We cannot build on foundations that we know have an expiration date. Taking advantage of the fact that the Aztec stack is modular, it is imperative to integrate signatures and proofs resistant to quantum attacks from day zero. We must consider schemes based on Lattices or STARKs to neutralize the risk that Shor’s algorithm poses to elliptic curves. We do not want future patches; we want immunity at birth.

  • The Manifesto (Whitepaper): We need a 2008-style document. Short, elegant, and stripped of unnecessary technocracy. A text that any cypherpunk can audit in an afternoon, focusing on pure game theory and privacy by default.

Direct questions:

  1. What is the estimated roadmap for the finalization and deployment of the mainnet?

  2. How much time do you estimate remains before the protocol is functional and auditable by the validator community?

  3. As an Aztec validator, in which specific repositories or technical channels can I monitor the code evolution and stress tests in real time?

The history of cryptocurrencies is full of “improvements” that ended up becoming companies. If this protocol seeks to be the definitive electronic cash, its only authority must be mathematical consensus, and its only flag must be absolute privacy.