WillPapper
0 Följer
1 Följare
0 Gilla-markeringar
0 Delade
Inlägg
Videor
Blockchains should be easy to build and easy to run.
The industry is stuck with two flawed systems for managing withdrawals:
- Centralized servers (possible to manipulate, prone to liveness failures)
- Fraud proofs (still have centralized components like multi-sigs, often require validators to provide bonds and maintain an active reserve of tokens)
Our solution is to provide multiple verification systems that must all sign off on withdrawals.
As we develop, we want to include:
- Centralized TEEs across major cloud providers
- Decentralized TEEs ( @litprotocol)
- AVSs via @EigenLayer and @LayerOnEth
- Multiple zkVMs like @a16zcrypto’s Jolt, @RiscZero, @SuccinctLabs SP1
We can also build in flexibility:
- Allow withdrawals with fewer providers but longer waiting periods
- Enter challenge mode if providers disagree
- Create tiered security models for different use cases, such as certain withdrawal thresholds
We then use smart contracts to coordinate all verification.
Perfect security doesn't exist, but requiring multiple systems to agree eliminates single points of failure.
- Centralized servers (possible to manipulate, prone to liveness failures)
- Fraud proofs (still have centralized components like multi-sigs, often require validators to provide bonds and maintain an active reserve of tokens)
Our solution is to provide multiple verification systems that must all sign off on withdrawals.
As we develop, we want to include:
- Centralized TEEs across major cloud providers
- Decentralized TEEs ( @litprotocol)
- AVSs via @EigenLayer and @LayerOnEth
- Multiple zkVMs like @a16zcrypto’s Jolt, @RiscZero, @SuccinctLabs SP1
We can also build in flexibility:
- Allow withdrawals with fewer providers but longer waiting periods
- Enter challenge mode if providers disagree
- Create tiered security models for different use cases, such as certain withdrawal thresholds
We then use smart contracts to coordinate all verification.
Perfect security doesn't exist, but requiring multiple systems to agree eliminates single points of failure.
Most people misunderstand this critical aspect of fraud proofs in rollups.
The common belief: fraud proofs mathematically prove whether a transaction is correct or fraudulent, with the invalid ones automatically rejected.
The reality: some fraud proof implementations are essentially a bond system. Whoever puts up more money wins. Not who's mathematically correct.
The common belief: fraud proofs mathematically prove whether a transaction is correct or fraudulent, with the invalid ones automatically rejected.
The reality: some fraud proof implementations are essentially a bond system. Whoever puts up more money wins. Not who's mathematically correct.
Whoever controls transaction sequencing, controls the market:
- Centralized: profitable but censorable
- Shared: valuable but rigid, top-down
- Based: secure but expensive
- Onchain: programmable and sovereign for users
Sequencers should be accountable to token holders + users
- Centralized: profitable but censorable
- Shared: valuable but rigid, top-down
- Based: secure but expensive
- Onchain: programmable and sovereign for users
Sequencers should be accountable to token holders + users
The biggest problem with consumer crypto growth isn't lack of interest, it's lack of innovation. The 12th DEX doesn't onboard anyone that the 1st one didn't.
Logga in för att utforska mer innehåll