Comparisons
How does Shielded CSV compare to other privacy and scaling approaches?
vs. RGB
Both use Client-Side Validation on Bitcoin, but serve different purposes.
| Shielded CSV | RGB | |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Private payments | Smart contracts + tokens |
| Privacy | Full (ZK proofs hide everything) | Limited (history visible to participants) |
| Proof size | Constant (independent of history) | Grows with transaction history |
| On-chain data | 64 bytes per TX | Full Bitcoin transaction |
| Smart contracts | No | Yes (zk-AluVM, Turing-complete) |
| DeFi/Lending | Not possible | Possible (bilateral) |
| Status | Research / early prototype | Mainnet (v0.12) |
Complementary, not competing
zkCoins for the payment layer (privacy + scalability), RGB for programmable logic (lending, tokens). Both use Client-Side Validation on Bitcoin L1.
vs. Lightning Network
| Shielded CSV | Lightning | |
|---|---|---|
| Layer | L1 (Client-Side Validation) | L2 (payment channels) |
| Privacy | Full (ZK proofs) | Good (onion routing) |
| Interactivity | Receiver must be reachable | Routing path required |
| Capacity | ~100 TPS on L1 | Theoretically unlimited |
| Offline receive | No | No |
| Status | Research | Production |
Lightning and Shielded CSV are complementary. CSV assets could theoretically flow through Lightning channels.
vs. Zcash
| Shielded CSV | Zcash | |
|---|---|---|
| Blockchain | Bitcoin (existing) | Own chain |
| Consensus change | None needed | Own consensus |
| Privacy model | Mandatory for CSV users | Optional (~10-20% usage) |
| ZK system | PCD (Folding/STARKs) | Halo2 |
| Trusted setup | None | Eliminated since NU5 |
| On-chain footprint | 64 bytes/TX | Full transaction |
| Maturity | Research phase | Production since 2016 |
vs. Monero
| Shielded CSV | Monero | |
|---|---|---|
| Blockchain | Bitcoin | Own chain |
| Privacy approach | ZK proofs | Ring signatures + Stealth + RingCT |
| Anonymity set | All coins ever created | Ring of 16 decoys |
| Scalability | ~64 bytes on-chain | ~2-3 KB per TX |
| Statistical attacks | Not possible | Possible (decoy selection analysis) |
| Maturity | Research phase | Production since 2014 |
vs. CoinJoin
| Shielded CSV | CoinJoin (Wasabi/JoinMarket) | |
|---|---|---|
| Anonymity set | All coins | Round participants only |
| Amounts hidden | Yes | No (equal-output) |
| Coordinator | None | Required |
| On-chain analysis | Not possible | Difficult but not impossible |
| Cost | 1 nullifier (cheap) | Multiple UTXOs (expensive) |
| Regulatory risk | Low (no coordinator) | High (coordinators prosecuted) |
vs. Silent Payments (BIP352)
| Shielded CSV | Silent Payments | |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Full transaction privacy | Receive-only privacy |
| Amounts hidden | Yes | No |
| Transaction graph hidden | Yes | No |
| Complexity | High | Moderate |
| Maturity | Research | Near production |
Silent Payments solve a different problem (reusable addresses). They could serve as a receive mechanism for Shielded CSV in the future.
Bitcoin privacy landscape (2025/2026)
| Technology | Privacy level | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Shielded CSV | Maximum (full ZK) | Research |
| Silent Payments (BIP352) | Receive-only | Near production |
| PayJoin (BIP77/78) | Send-privacy | Production |
| CoinJoin | Medium (statistical) | Under regulatory pressure |
| Lightning (BOLT12) | Good (routing) | Production |
Shielded CSV is the most ambitious privacy solution for Bitcoin, but also the furthest from production readiness. Silent Payments are the pragmatic short-term choice.