Understanding sparse Merkle multiproofs

I no longer post directly on Medium; to view the latest copy of this article please go to https://www.wealdtech.com/articles/understanding-sparse-merkle-multiproofs/

Sparse Merkle multiproofs are an alternative to pollarding to provide space-efficient proofs for multiple values in the same Merkle tree. Merkle trees, proofs and pollards are explained in a previous article; it is best to read and understand that prior to reading this article. For the remainder of this article the Merkle tree below will be used to explain multiproofs:

A Merkle tree

Sparse multiproofs were first proposed by Vitalik Buterin.


A multiproof is simply a group of proofs against the same Merkle tree wrapped up together. The fact that they are together gives rise to the ability to make space savings. For example, below are three Merkle proofs against the above tree:

Individual Merkle proofs for “Banana”, “Peach” and “Kumquat”

It can be seen that these comprise of a total of 9 intermediate hashes (shown in green): 3 for each proof. Combining the individual proofs in to a multiproof gives the structure below:

Merkle multiproof for “Banana”, “Peach” and “Kumquat”

The Merkle multiproof contains 7 intermediate hashes whereas the individual proofs contain 9 intermediate hashes, so a space saving has been achieved.

Sparse multiproofs

Although a Merkle multiproof does give some space saving it is possible to increase this saving by removing data that can be obtained through other means.

For example, taking the above Merkle multiproof there are a number of intermediate hashes that can be calculated. The hashes bc4F...8d3f and 59a0...421d can be calculated by the verifier by hashing the values Banana and Peach, which are both known by the verifier. Looking closer towards the root the values c0b7...da30 and 6ff9...8e3d can also be calculated as both of their children (the hashes directly above them) are either supplied or can be calculated from the hashes above. These four nodes are shown in yellow below:

Merkle multiproof hashes that can be removed (shown in yellow)

Removing these values results in a sparse Merkle multiproof as shown below:

The final sparse Merkle multiproof

The sparse Merkle multiproof has reduced the number of hashes sent from an original 9 for individual proofs to just 3. It is also more efficient than pollarding, which would require 6 hashes to prove the same values.

To verify the values are part of the Merkle tree given the sparse multiproof the verifier would need to carry out the following steps (working from left to right and top to bottom):

  • Hash Banana to obtain bc4f...8d3f
  • Hash Peach to obtain 59a0...421d
  • Hash Kumquat to obtain 2aab...6f79
  • Hash bc4f...8d3f and 59a0...421d to obtain 9c15...5dec
  • Hash 2aab...6f79 and 45cf...14d9 to obtain a6e4...87df
  • Hash d596...66ef and 9c15...5dec to obtain c0b7...da30
  • Hash e336...ed14 and a6e4...87df to obtain 6ff9...8e3d
  • Hash c0b7...da30 and 6ff9...8e3d to obtain d576...ffd9

at which point final hash can be checked against the expected root to confirm that all values are in the tree.

A comparison of the space savings of Merkle pollards and sparse Merkle multiproofs over Merkle proofs is shown below for various numbers of values and proofs:

Space saving for Merkle pollards and spare Merkle multiproofs over simple Merkle proofs

Note that the multiproof savings are approximate because they depend on the location of the particular values to be proven and hence how many intermediate hashes can be removed.

Comparison of sparse multiproofs and pollarding

Given that the above table shows that multiproofs provide space savings over pollarding why would one choose pollarding? Sparse Merkle multiproofs have different characteristics to Merkle pollards, specifically:

  • they require all of the values and proofs to be present both at the time they are generated and at the time they are verified, whereas Merkle pollards allow proofs to be generated and verified individually
  • they require more memory and CPU cycles to generate and verify than Merkle pollards
  • they are harder to generate and verify in parallel than Merkle pollards
  • they are variable size, whereas Merkle pollards generate fixed-size proofs for a given tree and total number of proofs
  • it is possible for them to be larger than Merkle pollards in some situations due to the encoding system used to transmit the information; testing is advised

Ultimately it is down to the individual application’s requirements as which is more suitable. Both, however, provide significant savings over individual Merkle proofs and should be considered whenever multiple proofs against the same tree are required.

Sample implementation

An implementation of a Merkle tree with sparse multiproofs for the Go language can be found at https://github.com/wealdtech/go-merkletree/