Quote from: RobinLinus on March 30, 2023, 02:50:50 PM

The statement is the bitcoin consensus rules, basically expressing "I know a chain of blocks that is valid and results in chain state X". The (private) witness is the chain of blocks.
The chain state contains data like the block height, the total work, etc, but also a UTXO set commitment. To get a feeling for it, see our demo https://zerosync.org/headers-chain.html

So, is it correct to say that when you'll have The Full Chain Proof, your proof will prove that you known a set of ordered blocks (the witness) which starts from the Genesis one and produce -following all BTC consensus rules- the current UTXO set you advertise (and the additional data you have mentioned - height, total work,...)?

If so I think it's important -without of course forgetting the non-easy need for Full Chain Proof- to underline explicitly the result I have summarized above, because it would mean that, with publicly and widely audited scheme proved sound, the only way to cheat "for you" (aka for anyone advertising a current state by means of your tech) would be to be able to reconstruct a valid blockchain from the beginning, which should reassure many doubts.

Wish you to make fast progresses toward Full-Chain-Proof