Skip to content

LibraryConsensus2017Design paperCorpus record

Fast Merkle Trees

BIP 98. Mark Friedenbach.

BIP 98, Fast Merkle Trees. In many applications it is useful to prove membership of a data element in a set without having to reveal the entire contents of that set.

Status in the source: Draft. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification.

Fast Merkle Trees is worth reading for the rule it actually adds: In many applications it is useful to prove membership of a data element in a set without having to reveal the entire contents of that set.

The five-minute read

The rule

In many applications it is useful to prove membership of a data element in a set without having to reveal the entire contents of that set.

What was already failing

Bitcoin script and block validity only change when a soft fork says an old pattern is now invalid. Without that rule, every node is free to accept what this document wants to reject.

What the number does not mean

The source marks this draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

What a builder should be able to point at

An implementation either constrains CVE or it is a different design.

One action, walked through

  1. Open BIP 98 and read the status line before the examples.
  2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: In many applications it is useful to prove membership of a data element in a set without having to reveal the entire contents of that set.
  3. Name the object that changes: CVE.
  4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What the text is allowed to settle

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 98 can settle the shape of Fast Merkle Trees. It cannot settle whether a later client, a later fork, or a later wallet still does this.

What this page will not pretend

There is no benchmark, no adoption number, and no claim that the mechanism is safe outside the assumptions written in the source.

What has to be true

  • You are implementing BIP 98 at the status the text itself states: Draft.
  • The object that has to change is CVE. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
  • Activation is a separate mechanism from the opcode or the sighash. This page does not pick a height.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

  • Which bytes become invalid under Fast Merkle Trees, and which old transactions stay valid?
  • Is enforcement in consensus, or only in the mempool policy of one client?
  • Which of these objects does the text actually define: CVE?

Terms

BIP 98
The public text titled Fast Merkle Trees.
Draft
The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

Bitcoin script and block validity only change when a soft fork says an old pattern is now invalid. Without that rule, every node is free to accept what this document wants to reject.

What the design proposes

  • In many applications it is useful to prove membership of a data element in a set without having to reveal the entire contents of that set.
  • The Merkle hash-tree, where inner/non-leaf nodes are labeled with the hash of the labels or values of its children, is a cryptographic tool that achieves this goal.
  • Bitcoin uses a Merkle hash-tree construct for committing the transactions of a block into the block header.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The Merkle hash-tree, where inner/non-leaf nodes are labeled with the hash of the labels or values of its children, is a cryptographic tool that achieves this goal.
  • Locate CVE in BIP 98 and apply it to one transaction or call.
  • Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • A soft fork does not bind a node that never upgrades. It binds the nodes that enforce the new rejection.
  • Activation is a separate mechanism from the opcode or the sighash. This page does not pick a height.
  • The source marks this draft. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 98 when a pitch says 'Fast Merkle Trees' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.