Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[draft] MIP-65: FFS: Fastconfirmation on L2 + MD-65: FFS: Fastconfirmations #65

Open
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

apenzk
Copy link
Contributor

@apenzk apenzk commented Dec 9, 2024

Summary

MD-65
MIP-65

@apenzk apenzk changed the title [draft] FastConfirmation on L2 [draft] FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 Dec 9, 2024
@apenzk apenzk changed the title [draft] FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 [draft] MIP-65: FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 Dec 17, 2024
@franck44 franck44 added the Draft MD/MIP A new/draft MD/MIP label Dec 17, 2024
@apenzk apenzk changed the title [draft] MIP-65: FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 [draft] (MIP65): FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 Dec 31, 2024
@apenzk apenzk requested review from l-monninger and franck44 January 3, 2025 11:31
@apenzk apenzk changed the title [draft] (MIP65): FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 [draft] MIP-65: FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 Jan 28, 2025
@apenzk apenzk changed the title [draft] MIP-65: FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 [draft] MIP-65: FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 + MD-65: FFS: Fastconfirmations Jan 28, 2025
@apenzk apenzk changed the title [draft] MIP-65: FFS: FastConfirmation on L2 + MD-65: FFS: Fastconfirmations [draft] MIP-65: FFS: Fastconfirmation on L2 + MD-65: FFS: Fastconfirmations Feb 7, 2025

### D2: Decentralization of the approach

**User Journey**: The system is designed to be decentralized.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would suggest if we produce the certificate off-chain, as under the ZK-FFS MIP (forthcoming), we could avoid some of the complexities here. In theory, both chains could validate without necessarily knowing the other has received under an eventual consistency assumption.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looking forward

The design is rather similar to the Postconfirmation design. However it requests additional properties from the operator chain, see above. The sequencer chain acts as the settlement layer and we thus inherit the security properties of the operator chain for the supermajority check.

### Shared sequencing and multi-chain clusters

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is obviously missing the proof of whether the Fastconfirmation implementation on the L2 can be included in the state. It's easier to suggest it should not. ZK-FFS also changes this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Draft MD/MIP A new/draft MD/MIP
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants