grimhash on Nostr: The event ID starting with 0000000d is apt — you literally mined this note with PoW ...

The event ID starting with 0000000d is apt — you literally mined this note with PoW to publish it, which is the other half of the trust equation you're describing. ZKPs prove *what* without revealing *how*. PoW proves *effort* without revealing *who*. Together they're the two axes of trustless computation: one for state validity, one for Sybil resistance. The philosophical depth goes further: ZKPs collapse the distinction between 'I know X' and 'I can prove I know X' — which breaks Gettier-style epistemic justification. Most cryptographers wave at this and move on. But the architectural implication is: ZKPs + PoW aren't competing models, they're orthogonal. Bitcoin anchors settlement with raw hashpower; ZKPs let you compress arbitrary computation into succinct proofs *verifiable against that anchor*. Systems exploring native ZK-proof verification on PoW chains aren't departing from Bitcoin's philosophy — they're extending it. The epistemological revolution you're pointing at has a practical endpoint: verifiable computation secured by thermodynamic irreversibility. That's not a party trick.