In the sequencing commitment (previously history root) naive design, every rollup is forced to prove the sequencing of all txs on Kaspa. Below I discuss how to optimize provers' workload so it corresponds to the activity on the individual rollup.
FreshAir08
194 posts
FreshAir08
@FreshAir08
Kaspa researcher and developer.
Supported by the Kaspa ecosystem foundation (KEF)
Joined December 2024
- I wrote a little post on the Kaspa research forum, with an important question targeted to zk-technology experts:
- Replying to @kaspaunchained @KaspaCurrency and 3 othersCould you link that paper Michael speaks off at the Youtube description?
- Replying to @OriNewmanI would really like a blockdag in the shape of a musical note, or something of the like
- Replying to @Kaspa_KEF and @freshairAwesome news from KEF team. Congrats Elliot! good to have you back in Kaspa research.
- Replying to @FreshAir08 @KaspaFacts and @DesheShaiThe classic example would be doing double spends with less than 49%. See for example a (very theoretical) quantum attack that allows double spend on bitcoin with very small hashrate (but will take a few hundred years to pull off)
- Replying to @FreshAir08 @KaspaFacts and @DesheShaiTo be more precise this is (more or less) what Shai meant when you originally saw it a few posts ago, but as you can see in the post you linked its not exactly a formal term and people use it to describe various things.
- Replying to @KaspaFacts and @DesheShaiGenerally speaking, 49% attack would refer to any type of attack that is usually pertained to be possible only with "51%" hashrate or more, but with "49%" hashrate or less. Depending on practicality, this might be akin to claiming the protocol is broken.
- Replying to @bambooBIP39 @KaspaSilver and 4 othersTerrible argument fueled by instant culture. here is the RSA paper: people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Rsapape… Guess we gotta discard that at the trash can and keep with one time pads. Not simple enough.
- Replying to @DesheShai @adam3us and 9 othersI guess my question is: if lightning is versatile enough as is, via routing and etc', why do you need to settle at all? At the end of the day when you settle you need/should wait for L1 latency. But I admit I should probably use this chance and just learn more about lightning.
- Replying to @adam3us @DPRC01 and 9 othersI heard of lightning. I have a question: if you truly trust the confirmation provided by the LN, why does it need to rely on btc at all? why not transact solely on lightning? imo refusal to do that is admission that to really be secure you still have to wait for 6 bitcoin blocks.
