mert
@0xmert
hi @vitalik.eth — I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on the nomenclature here if you can spare a few mins seems there are a ton of disagreements on all dimensions and it would be helpful imo https://x.com/0xMert_/status/1804244166584516865
3 replies
8 recasts
126 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
So my current understanding of the scheme (from reading https://www.zkcompression.com/learn/core-concepts): 1. You have a new class of accounts. For these accounts, only the hash of their state is stored onchain. 2. To interact with these accounts, you make a tx which specifies the pre-state-hashes of those N accounts and the post-state-hashes and provides a validity proof (which I assume means a ZK-SNARK) 3. The new state is required to be public (which is reasonable; otherwise you can send someone a random amount of money and their account will become inaccessible to them, you can get around this by making it a utxo system but that would be a significant limitation) 4. QUESTION: the docs say 128 Bytes for the validity proof. What proof scheme is this? 5. QUESTION: do the contents of a transaction have to be made public, or just the state delta? I guess this feels to me like a stateless client architecture more than anything else.
5 replies
4 recasts
154 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
What confuses me is, how does this achieve anything like the numbers you're claiming??? It feels like if you're doing it separately per-tx, the overhead of verifying a SNARK would be *higher* than the cost of doing a few bit-twiddling and hashing operations (which is what eg. token transfers are). The gains of ZK rollups come from having *one* SNARK wrapping *many* transactions.
4 replies
3 recasts
38 reactions
Ismeth
@ism.eth
I believe it will be only useful for hibernating accounts for later rehydration. (to cut state rent) Every other use case seems to be quite expensive.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
