# Performance and Costs¶

Contrary to permissionless blockchains, such as Ethereum, Harmony’s Bridges can easily implement the cryptographic primitives of the verified blockchains, instead of relying on pre-compiled smart contracts or manual and costly implementation of primitives. In the case of Bitcoin, the BTC Bridge can provide native support for the SHA256 and RIPEMD-160 hash functions, as well as for ECDSA using the secp256k1 curve.

Consequently, storage resembles the main cost factor of BTC-Relay on Harmony.

## Estimation of Storage Costs¶

BTC-Relay only stores Bitcoin block headers. Transactions are not stored directly in the relay – this responsibility lies with other components or applications interacting with BTC-Relay.

The size of the necessary storage allocation hence grows linear with the length of the Bitcoin blockchain (tracked in BTC-Relay) – specifically, the block headers stored in BlockHeaders which are referenced in Chains or in an entry of Forks.

Recall, for each block header, BTC-Relay merely stores:

• the 32 byte blockHash
• 4 byte blockHeight (twice for better referencing, so 8 bytes in total)
• the 32 byte merkleRoot
• the 4 byte timestamp (u32, wrapped in DateTime )
• and the 32 byte target (u256 integer)

That is, in total 108 bytes per submitted Bitcoin block header (fork or main chain block).

For example, if we were to sync BTC-Relay from the genesis block all the way to block height 612450, the storage requirements would amount to around 66 MB – an arguably negligible number. At the current rate and under this configuration, we would reach 100 MB in about 10 years.

Note

Fork submissions take up additional storage space, depending om the length of the tracked fork. Compared to the (already negligible) size of the main chain block headers, this overhead is negligible. Furthermore, fork entries are deleted when a chain reorganization occurs, while old entries (with sufficient confirmations) can be subject to pruning.

## BTC-Relay Optimizations¶

### Pruning¶

Optionally, to further reduce storage requirements (e.g., in case more data is to be stored per block in the future), pruning of Chains and BlockHeaders can be introduced. While the storage overhead for Bitcoin itself may be acceptable, Harmony is expected to connect to numerous blockchains and tracking the entire blockchain history for each could unnecessarily bloat Bridges (even more so, if Bridges are non-exclusive to specific blockchains).

With pruning activated, Chains would be implemented as a FIFO queue, where sufficiently old block headers are removed from BlockHeaders (and the references from Chains and Forks accordingly). The pruning depth can be set to e.g. 10 000 blocks. There is no need to store more block headers, as verification of transactions contained in older blocks can still be performed by requiring users to re-spend. More detailed analysis of the spending behavior in Bitcoin, i.e., UTXOs of which age are spent most frequently and at which “depth” the spending behavior declines, can be considered to optimize the cost reduction.

Warning

If pruning is implemented for BlockHeaders and Chains as performance optimization, it is important to make sure there are no Forks entries left which reference pruned blocks.

### Batch Submissions¶

Currently, BTC-Relay supports submissions of a single Bitcoin block header per transaction.

To reduce network load on the Bridge, multiple block header submissions can be batched into a single transaction. Note: the improvement in terms of data broadcast to the Bridge depends on the fixed costs per Bridge transaction (if Bridge transactions are considered a negligible cost, batching may be unnecessary).

The potential improvement can especially be useful for blockchains with higher block generation rates than Bitcoin’s 1 block / 10 minutes, as in the case of Ethereum.

### Outlook on Sub-Linear Verification in Bitcoin¶

Recently, so called “sub-linear” light clients were proposed for Bitcoin, which use random sampling of blocks to deter malicious actors from tricking light clients into accepting an invalid chain.

We refer the reader to the Superblock NiPoPoW and the FlyClient papers for more details.

As of this writing, both techniques require soft fork modifications to Bitcoin, if to be deployed in a secure and useful manner. The design of BTC-Relay as specified in this document (split into storage, verification, parser, etc. components) thereby allows for introduction of additional verification methods, without major modifications to the architecture.