Clarity Working Group (WG) – Meeting Recap | Tue, 17 Mar 2026

Working Groups
1

Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 09:00 AM Eastern Time

Hosted by: Setzeus and Gary

Duration: ~45 mins

1. Agenda Overview

  • RFQ System Discussion (Dylan from Bitflow)

  • Lamport Signatures Presentation - by Setzeus

  • xBTC to sBTC Swap Contract (Friedger)

2. Key Meeting Highlights

RFQ System Discussion (Dylan from Bitflow)

  • Current Limitations:

    • Deposit requirement hinders RFQ functionality.

    • At least 1 transaction slower than optimal

    • If quote isn’t taken, makers must withdraw before offering another quote

    • Frequent withdrawals needed; only one maker wins per quote. Overall experience inferior.

  • Solana Comparison:

    • $100M wrapped ETH swap with <1% price impact using RFQ quotes

    • Two parties pre-sign, no transfers occur until broadcast

    • Makers park assets on-chain, make quotes all day while earning interest

  • Potential Stacks Solution (Brice’s input):

    • Custom SIP-10 contract with signature-based transfers.

    • Requires modified sBTC contract or wrapper contract.

    • Anyone can call transfer with proper signature from token owner

    • Wrapper would need 1:1 swap from regular sBTC

    • Technical note from Brice: “Anyone can call; proper guards are expected.** Returns (ok true) on success. Error codes: (err u1) insufficient balance, (err u2) sender==recipient, (err u3) non-positive amount.*”

Lamport Signatures Presentation - by Setzeus

  • Overview

    • Hash-based digital signatures (not elliptic curve based)

  • Advantages:

    • Quantum resistant and universal to any hashing function.

    • Universal to any hashing function (SHA-256, SHA-512, etc.)

  • Limitations:

    • Prohibitively expensive (factor of 1,300x cost)

    • One-time use only (reveals private key during verification)

  • Technical Mechanics:

    • Generate 2 private keys (32 bytes each)

    • Message converted to bits, each bit hashed using corresponding private key

    • Verification requires passing both private keys

  • Clarity implementation:

    • supports Lamport signatures for relatively short messages

  • Used in BitVM

    • “Lamport signatures remain a core primitive across all versions for enabling statefulness in stateless Bitcoin Script (via one-time commitments, equivocation detection, and fraud proofs).”

  • Mempool vulnerability:

    • private keys exposed before confirmation, enabling front-running

xBTC to sBTC Swap Contract (Friedger)

  • Solution developing for ~37 Bitcoin $2,7M worth of stranded xBTC tokens: → See explorer

  • Contract mechanics:

    1. Users deposit xBTC into contract

    2. Custodian takes xBTC, sends Bitcoin to sBTC bridge deposit address

    3. Bitcoin arrives as sBTC in contract

    4. Users claim equivalent sBTC amount

    Basically, users deposit xBTC into a contract, custodian swaps for Bitcoin, which arrives as sBTC.

  • Current Situation:

  • Repository: https://github.com/friedger/clarity-xbtc-sbtc

  • Custodian timeline: prefers sooner rather than later conversion completion

:link: Resources & References

:megaphone: Call To Action

  • Explore RFQ System Solutions: Engage with the Clarity WG community on potential solutions for RFQ systems on Stacks.

  • Review and experiment with Lamport Signatures: Consider the implications of using Lamport signatures in Clarity. Come demo in the WG your use case.

  • xBTC to sBTC Swap: If you have any stranded xBTC, join the discussion in FastPool discord and contact Friedger to address the stranded xBTC tokens issue.

  • Community: Join the Clarity Working Group! Developers, auditors, educators, and grant teams are welcome. Connect with Gary on X to join the group chat and access the bi-weekly Google Meet link.

→ Previous weeks recaps