Replying to Adrien Lacombe

but BitVM design is optimistic, do you really see this as good as the real thing? e.g. verifying a SNARK proof onchain vs never actually verifying it but instead rellying on someone challenging in case someone tries to fraud ...
Avatar
Super Testnet 1y ago

I think optimistic protocols are fine as long as you yourself can prevent fraud from happening against you by doing the verification yourself.

The lightning network is a good example of an optimistic protocol. My counterparty can *try* to broadcast a channel closure transaction containing old state, but I am optimistic that he won't, because whenever he broadcasts a transaction, *I* verify that it contains the current state, and if not, I take his money.

I think bitvm can be like that. Someone can *try* to finalize a bitvm contract without running the bitvm program correctly, but I am optimistic that he won't, because whenever he broadcasts a finalization transaction, *I* can verify that it produces the right result, and if not, I take his money.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

7e
Adrien Lacombe 1y ago

right, very good point, in the BitVM context it would then mean that it should be made simple to let a challenger program running on a server at home I imagine?

Avatar
Super Testnet 1y ago

I don't think it really needs to be a server. Lightning wallets only need to get online every 2 weeks or so to ensure their counterparty isn't cheating. I think a bitvm wallet could do the same thing. As an (occasional) bitvm dev, I want to ensure my bitvm programs use a 2 week timelock to give users time to (1) open their device and check that the program was executed correctly (2) and penalize their counterparty if they ran it wrong.

7e
Adrien Lacombe 1y ago

thank you!