### Implementing Smart Contracts on-DAG: A Leap in Blockchain Innovation
So many tradeoffs, nuances, and complexities, so why not ditch it all and just implement native smart contracts on-dag?
The gist: I believe zk tech provides a leap in the ability of replicated state machines to scale computationally. So any sc sys without zk is inferior https://t.co/EIHXNg0lYr
In a recent tweet that has sparked significant interest within the blockchain technology community, Michael Sutton, a noted developer in the field, proposed a revolutionary shift in smart contract implementation—moving from traditional blockchain models to utilizing Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) with zero-knowledge (zk) technology.
#### **What are Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs)?**
**Understanding DAGs**
DAGs are data structures that contrast with the linear models of traditional blockchains. Each node in a DAG can have more than one parent or child, offering parallel transaction processing capabilities which could theoretically lead to higher scalability and efficiency.
**Benefits of DAGs over Traditional Blockchains:**
– **Scalability:** Parallel processing of transactions.
– **Speed:** Faster confirmation times due to less sequential dependency.
– **Reduced Waste:** No need for mined empty blocks or nonce guesses.
—
#### **The Role of Zero-Knowledge Proofs**
**Zero-Knowledge Technology**
Zero-knowledge proofs, or zk-proofs, allow one party (the prover) to prove to another (the verifier) that a given statement is true, without revealing any information beyond the validity of the statement itself. This technology is pivotal for privacy-preserving smart contracts.
**Advantages:**
– **Privacy and Security:** Transactions can be validated without revealing sensitive information.
– **Scalability:** zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs reduce the computational load on network nodes.
—
#### **Smart Contracts on DAG: Why It Matters**
**Inherent Issues with Traditional Smart Contracts:**
– **Scalability Limits:** The linear nature of blockchains leads to bottlenecks in transaction processing.
– **Complexity:** Managing state transitions and consensus can become unwieldy in large-scale operations.
**Proposing Native Smart Contracts on-DAG:**
– **Direct Execution:** Contracts could be executed directly on the DAG structure, leveraging its inherent properties.
– **Reduced Latency:** Quicker processing due to less sequential block dependencies.
—
#### **Community Reaction and Discussion**
Here’s a summary of the comments on Michael Sutton’s tweet:
**1. Enthusiastic Support**
– Many in the community expressed enthusiasm over the potential of this approach, citing possible increases in transaction throughput and confidentiality through zk-technology.
**2. Skepticism and Technical Challenges**
– Some users pointed out the challenges in implementing zk on-DAG, mentioning complexities in state management, potential centralization issues, and the need for a robust security model.
**3. Alternative Suggestions**
– Alternatives like sharding, sidechains, or layer-2 solutions were brought up, debating if these could meet scalability and privacy needs without moving entirely off-blockchain architecture.
**4. Request for More Info**
– Numerous users asked for more detailed technical explanations, research papers, or pilot projects demonstrating the feasibility of smart contracts on DAG.
—
#### **Looking Forward**
**Potential Impact**
– If successfully implemented, native smart contracts on-DAG could represent a paradigm shift, potentially making many existing blockchain solutions obsolete or in need of significant upgrades.
**Technical and Educational Roadmap**
– The community looks forward to seeing demonstrations, simulations, or whitepapers detailing this innovative approach. Workshop sessions or developer conferences focusing on DAG technology could also foster progress.
—
#### **Conclusion**
Michael Sutton’s proposal has ignited a vibrant discussion in the blockchain field about the future of smart contract execution. While the idea remains in early conceptual stages, its potential to redefine blockchain scalability and privacy through DAGs and zero-knowledge proofs has undoubtedly captured the imagination of the tech community. As discourse continues, the real-world applications and practical implementations of this technology will be closely watched.
[For more information, please refer to Michael’s original thread and the subsequent research or academic discussions that follow.](https://twitter.com/michaelsuttonil/status/1926391070419493182?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Atomic Composability in ZK Rollups: A New Dawn for Blockchain Interoperability
Atomic Composability in ZK Rollups: A New Dawn for Blockchain Interoperability
by TheFutureDev
I find this post to be an accumulation of the clarity we are starting to obtain in the last few weeks regarding atomic composability and synchronous interop between based ZK rollups, and I hope the reader benefits from it in the same way. There’s a lot to follow..
Atomic composability in the context of Zero Knowledge (ZK) Rollups refers to the ability of different blockchain environments to interact seamlessly and efficiently without compromising on security or privacy. Michael Sutton’s recent X post (tweet) sheds light on the emerging trend where ZK Rollups are becoming the backbone for scalable and compatible blockchain interactions.
The Role of ZK Rollups
ZK Rollups, which perform computation off-chain and bundle transactions into batches, are pivotal for scaling Ethereum and other blockchains. The atomicity ensures that if one part of a transaction fails, the entire operation rolls back, maintaining system integrity and user trust.
The Emergence of Synchronous Interoperability
With recent advancements, the concept of synchronous interop has gained traction. This means transactions and their validations occur simultaneously across different networks, drastically reducing latency and enhancing the user experience.
Benefits of Synchronous Interop
Instantaneous Results: Transactions are confirmed in real-time, which is crucial for applications requiring immediate feedback.
Delegated Censorship in Blockchain: The Prover Dilemma
Inclusion-time proofs have been considered a cornerstone for enhancing efficiency and verifiability in blockchain transactions. However, a recent Twitter post by blockchain expert Michael Sutton sheds light on an unintended consequence of this mechanism. Here’s what you need to know:
Understanding Inclusion-Time Proving
In blockchain technology, inclusion-time proving refers to the process where transactions are not only verified after being added to a block but also during the inclusion phase itself. This was initially hailed as_
Along the way, we show that inclusion-time proving actually means censorship is delegated to the provers (who can avoid providing proof and thus censor the transaction from inclusion in the first place). This means prover services become subject to centralization concerns, unlike...
< /blockquote> a step forward towards decentralized trust models. However, the reality might be more complex.
The De Facto Centralization
As Sutton points out, the role of provers in the inclusion process inadvertently leads to what could be termed as ‘delegated censorship’. Provers, tasked with providing proofs for transaction inclusion, hold significant power:
Censorship Capabilities: By choosing not to furnish the necessary proof, provers can effectively censor transactions at their discretion.
Centralization Risks: This power can lead to centralization, where only a handful of provers or entities control the validation flow, undermining the very essence of blockchain’s distributed nature.
Along the way, we show that inclusion-time proving actually means censorship is delegated to the provers (who can avoid providing proof and thus censor the transaction from inclusion in the first place). This means prover services become subject to centralization concerns, unlike…
Following Michael Sutton’s post, the blockchain community on Twitter had a vigorous discussion:
Concern Over Centralization: Many users expressed concerns regarding the potential for centralization, arguing that blockchain’s value proposition hinges on decentralization. “This is a significant oversight in our pursuit of scalability,” commented @BlockChainDev.
Proposals for Mitigation: Some suggested technological solutions like multi-prover systems or incentive structures to ensure provers act in the network’s best interest. “Should we consider rotating provers to avoid central points of control?” asked @CryptoThinker.
Affirmation of the Problem: Several users acknowledged the insight, with @TrustedNode writing, “This is a crucial point. Any step towards centralization should be critically analyzed for its long-term effects.”
Looking Ahead
The implications of Sutton’s observation necessitate a re-evaluation of current blockchain protocols:
Developers and researchers might focus on creating mechanisms where the role of provers is less centralized or subjected to rigorous checks and balances.
Policy makers and blockchain enthusiasts will need to engage in deeper discussions about balancing efficiency gains with the fundamental principles of decentralization.
This issue not only highlights the nuanced intricacies of blockchain technology but also serves as a call to action for the community to address these challenges head-on to safeguard the integrity and ethos of blockchain systems.
Innovative Approaches in Blockchain: Separating Proof and Transaction Data Availability
Understanding the Newest Paradigm Shift Towards Enhanced Blockchain Functionality
by Crypto Insight Team
May 22, 2025
Introduction: A New Era in Blockchain Technology
Blockchain technology continues to evolve with groundbreaking concepts aimed at improving scalability and efficiency. One such innovation highlighted by blockchain expert Michael Sutton via Twitter involves the separation of proof data availability from transaction data availability. This idea, proposed for enhancing the composability of multi-logiczone transactions, marks a significant shift in blockchain protocol design.
What Does It Mean?
Michael Sutton’s tweet discusses a nuanced approach within blockchain development:
This motivates the need for separating proof data availability from transaction data availability (i.e., transaction inclusion) and for time-bounding the period in which such proofs must be submitted for composable multi-logiczone transactions
Proof Data Availability: Ensures that anyone can verify that a transaction happened without the need to process the entire transaction data.
Transaction Data Availability: Refers to the actual data of the transaction, which is necessary for the transaction to be executed.
Time-Bounding: This suggests setting a deadline for providing the proofs, ensuring timely processing and finality of transactions.
Benefits
Scalability: Reduces the load on nodes, allowing for more transactions to be processed by focusing only on necessary proof data.
Composability: Enhances the ability to create transactions that must interact across different blockchain zones or layers.
Efficiency: Decreases the time and data requirements for each transaction, promoting faster transaction finality.
Community Feedback and Opinions
The tweet sparked a wave of discussions among blockchain developers, enthusiasts, and potential users:
Supportive Comments: Many applaud the concept for its potential to tackle scalability issues. Users like @blockchain_dev praised the idea for its forward-thinking approach, stating, “This is exactly what we need to push blockchain technology to the next level. Reducing data requirements while maintaining security is a win-win.”
Concerns Raised: Some expressed concerns about implementation, security, and the potential for new vulnerabilities. @securespace questioned, “How will this affect the overall security model of blockchains?”
Technical Discussions: There were in-depth technical discussions around how proof systems would need to be integrated and the implications for existing blockchain protocols. @eth_guru commented, “This would require a significant overhaul in how transactions are validated. We’re looking at a fundamentally new layer of blockchain architecture.”
Future Prospects: Optimism was also evident with users envisioning future enhancements, with @crypto_visionary mentioning, “If implemented correctly, this could facilitate cross-chain communication like never before, potentially revolutionizing DeFi applications.”
In the world of blockchain and decentralized finance, inclusion-time proving has emerged as a contentious issue. This concept pertains to the verification of transactions at the time they are included in a block, which is crucial for real-time applications like high-frequency trading or time-sensitive smart contract execution. A recent post on Beaconcoin discusses how this process faces significant challenges in blockchain networks employing multileader consensus mechanisms.
The Core Issue
Multileader consensus allows multiple nodes to propose blocks simultaneously, aiming to improve network efficiency and throughput. However, as elucidated in the Beaconcoin post:
Performance Bottlenecks: Real-time or inclusion-time proving requires almost instantaneous validation, which is problematic even with Ethereum’s relatively long 12-second block times.
Fundamental Contradiction: The very nature of multileader systems introduces parallelism, leading to uncertainties in transaction execution order and timing, complicating the straightforward attachment of inline proofs.
Implications for Blockchain Design
The implications of these findings are profound, suggesting that:
Future blockchain designs need to reconcile the benefits of parallel processing with the need for predictable, verifiable execution.
There might be a trade-off between scalability (via multileader consensus) and the feasibility of real-time transaction validation.
Community Reaction and Analysis
Summary of Comments
The Beaconcoin post has sparked a vibrant discussion among blockchain developers and enthusiasts:
Alternative Views on Consensus: Some commentators suggest exploring hybrid models combining elements of both single-leader and multileader systems to mitigate these issues.
Technical Workarounds: A few tech enthusiasts discussed potential workarounds like batch proving or layered block systems where proofs could be attached post-inclusion but within a known timeframe.
Skepticism and Caution: Others expressed skepticism about the feasibility of real-time verification in any blockchain setting, proposing that some applications might need to adapt to the existing limitations.
Key Insights from User Interactions
User BcoinDev7: “The post brings up a good point, but what about considering a separate verification network that runs parallel to the main blockchain, solely for inclusion-time proves?”
User Frank_0x: “Isn’t this just a design flaw in current blockchain architectures? Shouldn’t we evolving past the limitations of traditional block structures?”
This article provides an overview of the issues surrounding inclusion-time proving in blockchain systems, particularly those utilizing multileader consensus, summarizes the community’s response in the comments, and suggests future directions for research and development in blockchain architecture.
Inclusion-Time Proving in Zk Rollups – A Step Forward for Blockchain Scalability
Inclusion-Time Proving in ZK Rollups: Revolutionizing Blockchain Scalability
In the rapidly evolving blockchain technology landscape, the introduction of zero-knowledge rollups (zk rollups) has been a significant development aimed at addressing scalability issues. Recently, Michael Sutton, a noted figure in blockchain technology, tweeted about what could be the next big leap: “inclusion-time proving.”
Understanding Inclusion-Time Proving
Zero-knowledge rollups are a layer 2 scaling solution that batch multiple transactions into a single transaction processed on Layer 1, significantly reducing the load and gas fees. However, one of the persistent challenges has been the coordination and dependency among these transactions, particularly when involving multiple zk rollups or what Sutton refers to as ‘logic-zones’:
At first glance, inclusion-time proving seems crucial for enabling atomic composability between multiple based zk rollups/logic-zones. It solves the dependency problem in one shot: we either all collaborate to create a collective proof—attached directly to the transaction—or we…
The concept of inclusion-time proving as referenced by Sutton, involves:
Atomic Composability: Transactions are bundled together with their proofs, ensuring that the entire set of operations either succeeds or fails together, leading to true composability across multiple systems.
Reduced Dependency: By having a collective proof, the interdependencies between different rollups are managed more effectively, reducing the risk of transaction failures due to incomplete or missing dependencies.
Scalability: This approach can potentially lead to higher throughput by optimizing the transaction verification process on the layer 1 blockchain, thereby enhancing overall scalability.
Community Reaction
The tweet from Michael Sutton sparked a vibrant discussion within the blockchain community:
Rapid Adoption Enthusiasts: Many commentators expressed optimism regarding the rapid adoption of inclusion-time proving, citing it as a breakthrough in blockchain scalability and composability. Enthusiasts believe this could pave the way for more complex decentralized financial systems.
Skeptics and Clarifications: Some skeptical users voiced concerns about the practical implementation, the scalability in real-world conditions, and the potential security vulnerabilities. They requested further details on how this method would handle errors or discrepancies in proofs.
Technical Discussions: There were in-depth debates on the cryptographic mechanisms involved, how this differs from existing proof systems, and the expected impact on existing zk rollup implementations.
Future Prospects
If implemented successfully, inclusion-time proving could:
Streamline transaction processes in applications requiring high-speed and real-time transaction confirmations.
Encourage the development of larger, more interconnected blockchain ecosystems.
Potentially reduce the complexity and cost associated with cross-rollup interactions.
