Let's solve these crucial protocol weaknesses

Are you saying AR would be the chain that runs ZK verification? Yes, it would work, with AR being the bottleneck. This is essentially taking the same roll-up approach taken by the Ethereum community, how is AO then different than multiplying ZK roll-ups by 10-thousand times on Ethereum?

Yet still, inter-L2 communication is very crucial. It has to be the L1 that offers verification, IMHO, because L1 is the synchronization point.

If I may be even more blunt, I don’t think optimistic verification is secure in an async setting without introducing a sufficient challenge peroid (which is sound, but goes directly against the scalability claim). By async setting, I mean either the actor programming model offered by ICP or AO, or the inter-L2 communication between ETH roll-ups.

ZK verification in an async setting would still either require a single L1 at the base layer, or relying on the replicated computation (because ZK verification is still computation) of each chains/subnet/shards running consensus protocol.

10 Likes