权益证明 板块

vitalik.eth · @VitalikButerin

@VitalikButerin · 6.0M 粉丝

看多

A lot of important progress on Frames (EIP-8141) has been quietly happening over the last few months. Highly recommend reading this, also the updated EIP https://t.co/jYqeS55j6P https://t.co/CPYONKnWZc

vitalik.eth · @VitalikButerin

@VitalikButerin · 6.0M 粉丝

看多

One optimistic and still very-non-consensus belief I have about the far future of cryptography: I think that there is a 33% chance that, for average real-world computation, there exist ways to implement all three of what I call the Egyptian God Protocols (SNARK, FHE, iO) with 1+ε factor overhead (meaning, for large enough instances, the added overhead of cryptographizing a computation becomes arbitrarily small compared to the base cost of doing the computation itself) And a 60% chance that all three can be done with single-digit overhead (ie. <10x, measured in total cost of energy plus amortized compute) I think there's a good chance we'll get one of these (probably SNARKs with single-digit overhead) by the end of this decade. After all, we're already there for specialized hash functions and for some LLM inference.

vitalik.eth · @VitalikButerin

@VitalikButerin · 6.0M 粉丝

看多

One positive consequence of all the recent detailed thinking about transaction formats - not just 8141, also "future of state" discussions eg. UTXOs, PBT, keyed nonces, and also recursive STARK mempool - is that we have a much more explicit understanding of how transactions have "actions" and "dependencies", and we can engineer around optimizing the two separately. An action is an effect that a transaction has. A dependency is a fact about the transaction and/or the state that must be true for the transaction to be valid. eg. a signature is a dependency, a Merkle proof of a UTXO is a dependency, a ZK-SNARK (or STARK) is a dependency, a call that sends ETH is an action Dependencies can be processed in parallel. Dependencies that involve state can be reasoned about by a mempool, especially if the specific state accessed is statically declared. Dependencies that are pure (no state calling allowed) can be processed once at the mempool layer and never need to be processed again - and potentially even replaced with a STARK verifying them, allowing not just execution but also data to be elided. In principle, dependencies and actions can all be expressed as calls (if needed, calls to precompiles). This would make the transaction format itself very bare-bones and minimalist (a list of calls, flags for the type of each call eg. dependencies would be static or pure calls, and origin, nonce, etc) and allows maximum cross-compatibility even if different EVM chains have different features. In 2015-era Ethereum, thinking explicitly about these differences was not very important: execution was execution, there were few enough transactions that we could process them all serially, and single-key ECDSA accounts were good enough for everyone. Ethereum's current scaling strategy, however, requires moving beyond that paradigm. Ethereum is beloved by many developers because the execution and state model is so dynamic and flexible. But dynamic and flexible is not friendly to scaling. Fortunately, >90% of Ethereum's activity by volume does not require anything dynamic and flexible. So, we require contracts, accounts and transactions to more explicitly specify what is dynamic and flexible and what is more statically-analyzable but more restrictive, and more statically-analyzable things get the lowest gas cost and thus scale the most. Effectively, learning from the best of both the 2015-era Ethereum model and a more Bitcoin-like model (reminder: Bitcoin has had what I call account abstraction since the beginning), and making a mixture of both (really, the full spectrum between both) available, with gas costs appropriate for the level of scale involved. New state types, the recursive STARK mempool, keyed nonces, etc all go in this direction. This all relates to transaction types, because a general-purpose transaction type is a very natural interface layer on top of which all of this can be implemented, and the current thinking around the EIP-8141 transaction type is going in this exact direction that is friendly to these kinds of future generalizations. So in that sense, 8141 done well is not just a culmination of 10 years of account abstraction work, it's also preparation for the next few years of responsible decentralization-friendly hyper-scaling.

vitalik.eth · @VitalikButerin

@VitalikButerin · 6.0M 粉丝

看多

Many years of hard work went into the Poseidon family of hashes, and they have provided great real-world value on Ethereum and elsewhere and will continue to do so for several years. They are the reason why it's fast to generate a client-side SNARK for a modern privacy-protocol. The fact that we have ultra-fast general-purpose STARKs (mid-three-digit overhead for basically any batched computation) and may well soon drop to double-digit or even lower is more amazing than anything that we had been hoping for in the early 2020s. Big congratulations to all involved in Poseidon, and all involved in STARKs. https://t.co/cdERDYkj6n

H.E. Justin Sun 👨‍🚀 🌞 · @justinsuntron

@justinsuntron · 4.0M 粉丝

看多

波场抗量子路线图公布！

CoinDesk · @CoinDesk

@CoinDesk · 3.8M 粉丝

看多

“It's a very creative way for Hyperliquid to move onshore.” @ChainlinkLabs’ @kkirkbos explains how Kraken’s Bitnomial licenses could give Hyperliquid a path into U.S. markets without traders accessing the protocol. Thank you to @realfi_co for being a sponsor of the CoinDesk Media Network.