zk rollups require newschool cryptography that are not in the spirit of Bitcoin & trusted rollups would require changes to Layer1 to undo transactions which the Bitcoin community would NEVER accept
Sources - idk I work in IT/mathematics and have spend a lot of time with zk-proofs such as signatures and hash preimages (their derivatives specifically). I do think they look cryptographically sound for now - but the spirit of Bitcoin has been betting on standard and well established cryptography for a long time. Modern zk-proofs do not have this long history of being unbroken yet
STARK proofs rely on crypto assumptions that are even older than the crypto assumptions bitcoin already relies on (collision-resistant hash vs elliptic curve DLP; see here)
Regarding implementations, there are validity proof implementations that are about the same age as the Schnorr implementation that is used in bitcoin.
First, it’s not my idea. Satoshi pondered the idea of zero-knowledge proofs on Bitcoin in 2010, and there were many people (including Bitcoiners) involved in the research that led to rollups.
@lightcoin wrote a detailed report highlighting potential rewards and risks of implementing validity rollups, and at the end of it all finished with the following conclusion:
All factors considered, given that validity rollups are "trustless" by design, and could be implemented without introducing new risks or sacrificing any of bitcoin’s core values or features, we believe the simplest implementations of validity rollups would be a great fit for bitcoin.
support for validity rollups can be done with a soft fork, not a hard fork.
I don't consider bitcoin to be perfect. example areas for improvement: privacy is inherently broken, can't fix it without a better protocol like zerocash. and scaling to the billions of people and machines who could be using bitcoin currently isn't possible without trusted third parties such as federated or centralized custodians.
validity rollups enable us to make significant progress toward solving these problems.
No, no fckn rollups on Bitcoin 😂
zk rollups require newschool cryptography that are not in the spirit of Bitcoin & trusted rollups would require changes to Layer1 to undo transactions which the Bitcoin community would NEVER accept
why not?
I wrote a second paragraph edit to explain. Bitcoin is already scalable through Lightning
Appreciate the added context, and agree that Lightning will help Bitcoin scale too.
Can you point me to any other resources that explain these issues you see with rollups more in depth?
Also curious to hear @lightcoin’s take on the issues you mentioned. He wrote the Bitcoin Rollups research report.
Sources - idk I work in IT/mathematics and have spend a lot of time with zk-proofs such as signatures and hash preimages (their derivatives specifically). I do think they look cryptographically sound for now - but the spirit of Bitcoin has been betting on standard and well established cryptography for a long time. Modern zk-proofs do not have this long history of being unbroken yet
STARK proofs rely on crypto assumptions that are even older than the crypto assumptions bitcoin already relies on (collision-resistant hash vs elliptic curve DLP; see here)
Regarding implementations, there are validity proof implementations that are about the same age as the Schnorr implementation that is used in bitcoin.
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
Fuck off with this. No.
It's not needed and would require a hard fork, which makes it a non starter for Bitcoin.
Say no to shitcoins. Bitcoin is already perfect.
what do shitcoins have to do with this?
That's where you got the idea from and that's what you would create by implementing it.
All Bitcoin "upgrades" must be backwards compatible, otherwise you create a shitcoin that nobody uses.
First, it’s not my idea. Satoshi pondered the idea of zero-knowledge proofs on Bitcoin in 2010, and there were many people (including Bitcoiners) involved in the research that led to rollups.
@lightcoin wrote a detailed report highlighting potential rewards and risks of implementing validity rollups, and at the end of it all finished with the following conclusion:
The full report can be found here: https://bitcoinrollups.org/
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
support for validity rollups can be done with a soft fork, not a hard fork.
I don't consider bitcoin to be perfect. example areas for improvement: privacy is inherently broken, can't fix it without a better protocol like zerocash. and scaling to the billions of people and machines who could be using bitcoin currently isn't possible without trusted third parties such as federated or centralized custodians.
validity rollups enable us to make significant progress toward solving these problems.
Man you really don't get Bitcoin.
why do you say that?
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author