Want to reduce energy use in Bitcoin multisig transactions? Here's the quick answer: MuSig2 is great for small groups (2–3 signers) with low computational needs, while FROST excels for larger groups (4+ signers) with its efficient single-round process. Both have unique strengths depending on group size and network conditions.
Key Findings:
-
MuSig2:
- Best for small groups (2–3 signers) with stable, low-latency networks.
- Two-round process uses more CPU and network bandwidth but works well for quick confirmations.
- Higher storage needs for intermediate signing states.
-
FROST:
- Ideal for larger groups (4+ signers) or high-latency networks.
- Single-round process reduces CPU, network traffic, and storage demands.
- Scales efficiently, keeping resource use steady even as signer count grows.
Quick Comparison:
| Criteria | MuSig2 | FROST |
|---|---|---|
| Rounds | Two | Single |
| Best for | Small groups (2–3 signers) | Large groups (4+ signers) |
| CPU Usage | Higher | Lower |
| Network Traffic | More | Less |
| Storage Needs | Higher | Lower |
| Scalability | Less efficient for large groups | Efficient for large groups |
Summary:
To save energy, use MuSig2 for small, low-latency setups and FROST for large or distributed groups. Both integrate well with Layer 2 networks like Lightning and Liquid, ensuring secure and efficient transactions.
MuSig2 and FROST Basics
MuSig2 and FROST use different coordination methods, which influence how they handle computations and energy usage. Let’s break down MuSig2's framework to better understand its processing and energy requirements.
Energy Use Analysis
MuSig2 and FROST have distinct impacts on CPU, network, and storage energy use. Here's how they compare:
Processing Power Requirements
MuSig2's two-round protocol increases CPU usage due to additional computational steps. In contrast, FROST's single-round aggregation minimizes processing demands by requiring fewer passes.
Network Traffic Impact
MuSig2's extra message exchanges result in higher bandwidth usage and latency. FROST, with its single-round communication, reduces both on-chain and off-chain data transmission, conserving energy used for network activity.
Data Storage Effects
MuSig2 requires storage for intermediate signing states, which leads to greater memory consumption. FROST combines commitments and shares into a more compact format, significantly reducing storage needs during high user activity.
These differences highlight how each protocol handles scalability as the number of users grows.
sbb-itb-c977069
Performance at Scale
Expanding on our energy analysis, the way protocols scale has a direct impact on resource use and power demands. MuSig2's O(n) two-round structure increases messaging and verification requirements as the number of signers grows. In contrast, FROST's fixed single-round setup keeps computing and network needs steady, no matter the group size.
MuSig2 works well for small to medium-sized signer groups in stable, low-latency networks with high bandwidth. On the other hand, FROST is better suited for larger groups or those spread across different locations. Its consistent message structure simplifies resource planning and reduces energy usage. This scalability plays a key role in determining energy consumption per transaction, as previously mentioned.
BitVault Implementation
Multisig Service Efficiency
BitVault improves energy efficiency by tailoring its approach based on the number of signers. For groups with two or three signers, it uses MuSig2, while FROST is chosen for larger or high-latency groups. This approach minimizes communication overhead and reduces CPU usage. All signing processes are secured with AES-256 encryption, which ensures strong security while keeping computational demands low. This directly cuts down on CPU, network, and storage costs.
Layer 2 Performance
BitVault applies its dynamic selection strategy to Layer 2 networks as well. For Lightning Network, it leverages FROST's one-round signing process to reduce latency and maintain steady resource usage. When handling Liquid transfers, it uses MuSig2 for quick confirmations and FROST for scheduled batch operations. On Layer 1, signature batching is employed to reduce CPU strain while maintaining CISA+ security standards, resulting in lower fees without compromising safety.
Conclusion
Summary of Findings
When it comes to large-scale, energy-efficient multisignature setups, MuSig2 and FROST each bring specific strengths based on the size of the signing group. MuSig2 operates with a two-round process, which keeps CPU and network usage low for smaller signer groups. On the other hand, FROST uses a single-round approach, scaling efficiently with a growing number of signers while maintaining consistent CPU and network performance. Both methods integrate well with layer 2 networks like the Lightning Network, ensuring reliable performance.
Usage Guidelines
To match energy efficiency with the number of signers:
-
For smaller multisig groups (2–3 signers):
- Use MuSig2 to keep computational and network demands minimal.
- Batch signatures for layer 1 transactions to simplify processing.
-
For larger groups (4+ signers):
- Choose FROST's single-round process to reduce network communication and coordination.
- Employ batch processing for planned transactions to improve efficiency.
Related posts
Subscribe to our newsletter.
