Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

jesse.base.eth πŸ”΅ pfp
jesse.base.eth πŸ”΅
@jessepollak
one of the hardest problems with smart contract wallets is how you manage keys across 10s or 100s or 1000s of chains. @mdehoog from the @base team has been building on @vitalik.eth's initial specification for a keystore rollup - would love folks to review and share feedback!
3 replies
4 recasts
52 reactions

Joethebeast.eth 🎩🍱 pfp
Joethebeast.eth 🎩🍱
@joethebeast1221
I managed to invite @vitalik.eth to share this idea back in /devconnect Istanbul and recall 2 of the many challenges on the idea - Can we avoid recursive SNARKs and get L1 gas costs low by batching? - How can we get enough L2s have L1-reading functionality? I think there are more but I only jotted down the qs πŸ‘†
5 replies
0 recast
2 reactions

Michael de Hoog pfp
Michael de Hoog
@mdehoog
Thanks, this is useful info. The first prototype we built avoided recursive SNARKs, but we couldn't figure out how to get the onchain costs to a reasonable place, even with batching. Ignoring the single pairing, napkin math was showing the total MSMs per proof adding up to min $5-10 per transaction.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
Have you experimented with other proof systems as a way of simplifying the constraints? Eg. using 64-bit STARKs for the "inner proofs", which are easier to recurse and make verifiers for, and then using one outer KZG-based layer (PLONK plus lookup-based?) to cut down the on-chain verification costs
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction