ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
waxwing58d ago
A bit of an update/nuance on the below, after continuing to read more about this new field: it's a valuable correction to say "this is not just like a federated sidechain: you can get a 1 out of n trust model, not only a majority/quorum". indeed, you can, though i would caution that you have to reflect on the security limitations of having a designated set of verifiers, even if only 1 of them has to be honest (I think that model is not bad at all for setup, but for continuous operation it's not so great; think: "men with guns"). Also worth noting that a related paper was released shortly after, using a different trick (witness encryption, pretty exotic stuff) but based on the same general ideas: https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/065.pdf 📝 1c9f0cf3…
💬 5 replies

Replies (5)

AAdrien Lacombe58d ago
oh you saw it too sorry!
0000 sats
waxwing58d ago
Right. But does it actually remove the DV part? It's still describing a protocol between a prover and verifier, and it's still describing use of a 2PC between them, just the circuit they're garbling is a much different and simpler one (in fact so simple it's just a single multiplication). So the verifier's secret needs to be there at setup, so it's a DV. Correct me if I'm wrong. Paper is huge 😁
0000 sats
waxwing58d ago
Oh you said improve not remove. OK. Seems like a performance difference not a trust difference.
0000 sats
tiero58d ago
Very hard for me to understand if something valuable to build anything beyond a “bridge” or just a nerd snipe that sounds sexy to investors “to have EVM on Bitcoin”
0000 sats
waxwing57d ago
I think it depends how far it goes. At the extreme a perfectly trustless sidechain or rollup of some flavor will be the best way to transact with bitcoin. Actual scalability and privacy. What they're aiming at right now is, I agree, just a high tech implementation of a bridge with maybe better security properties than those that already exist.
0000 sats