Nuh's avatar
Nuh 9 hours ago
Note also; it doesn't Have to be ZK proofs, you can still demand that miners do the computing and finalize the state, but you can demand that with latency, so they get to do that in the background and take their time, not while accepting txn to put in the block... Then they can vote on the state commitment of previous epoch. The downside of that is that you don't get to invent custom vms and don't save miners the effort. The upside is that you trust miners majority, instead of math and possibly buggy code. I don't know which is better, but I wanted to say this is possible

Replies (1)

Nuh's avatar
Nuh 9 hours ago
I guess you can call that hashrate escrow... But a merge mined sidechain with BitVM bridge is very much a hashrate escrow already. The difference here is that if you don't want faster blocks than Rootstock, you don't create Sidechains and worry about the consequences of that, instead you just accept transactions as they come without any computations, and update the state later... Separating DA from Compute. The obvious upside is synchronicity which makes the entire system safer and easier to reason about. Things all happen at the same time including their side effects in parallel contexts, and as long as majority of miners are honest (or ZK verifier is valid) you reach the same conclusion globally as you calculated locally.