Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
EulerLagrange.eth
@eulerlagrange.eth
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)
1 reply
3 recasts
6 reactions
Tim Becker | ChainLight
@tjbecker.eth
Can you elaborate on what this means? Is it similar to "optimistic verification with ZK fraud proofs"?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
EulerLagrange.eth
@eulerlagrange.eth
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.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
zkasv
@zkasv
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.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Tim Becker | ChainLight
@tjbecker.eth
You also lose out on synchronous / atomic composability that is enabled by verifying the proofs directly. Admittedly that's not relevant for all applications
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
zkasv
@zkasv
Agree. Forgot about huff lang to add it's magic as well.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
