Building verification tools for crypto and beyond 
@personaexyz



Special shout out to @dantehrani.eth for mentioning optimistic verification of ZKPs in a cast awhile back.

Was scoping an idea and this concept really came in handy as a mechanism to keep txs cheap.

I suspect we will see this pattern adopted more going forward. (Not saying it’s applicable in all situations)

Working on building zkTLS infra/products. A ruthless empiricist and meme connoisseur.

http://opacity.network

Can you elaborate on what this means? Is it similar to "optimistic verification with ZK fraud proofs"?

Researcher at https://chainlight.io 🔗‍💥🔦,
Building https://relicprotocol.com

Verifying snarks is relatively expensive, so a contract that requires users to submit snarks regularly has a high engagement cost.

The idea is users submit a proof and the contract doesn’t verify it. If a “validator” sees it’s a bad proof, they can pay for the verification to claim some stake.

I see. Assuming the contract stores the hash of the submitted proof, no interaction is needed to prove fraud. Has anyone done an analysis on how long the challenge period needs to be for a single-tx challenge?

I guess, technically this might be possible, but with way things are going and L2+ coming up, tx costs getting even cheaper, would it be worth introducing the concept and risks? Wonder if someone has done the analysis of cost savings.