Michael Sutton On X: 1. Right. 2. NO. It only needs to save the state as of the last proven point (i.e., that which is encoded in the last SCU). To be more safe regarding reorgs it might need to save the state at the time of L1’s recent pruning point, but not before. The L2 essentially inherits…— Michael Sutton January 16, 2025

Jan 16, 2025 |

1. Right. 2. NO. It only needs to save the state as of the last proven point (i.e., that which is encoded in the last SCU). To be more safe regarding reorgs it might need to save the state at the time of L1’s recent pruning point, but not before. The L2 essentially inherits…— Michael Sutton (@MichaelSuttonIL) January 16, 2025

read more

Michael Sutton On X: To the best of my knowledge, IOTA never implemented ZK technology over it, so this is not a correct comment. This whole design effort linked in my post focuses on implementing ZK-based SC tech over a scalable UTXO/scripting system (and specifically with the *based* approach)— Michael Sutton January 16, 2025

Jan 16, 2025 |

To the best of my knowledge, IOTA never implemented ZK technology over it, so this is not a correct comment. This whole design effort linked in my post focuses on implementing ZK-based SC tech over a scalable UTXO/scripting system (and specifically with the *based* approach)— Michael Sutton (@MichaelSuttonIL) January 16, 2025

read more

Michael Sutton On X: However L2 wallets for instance will need to interact with L2 state through nodes holding the full L2 state etc-> i.e., they need to interact with L2 in order to compose the L2-targeted payload they will insert to the L1-submitted tx— Michael Sutton January 16, 2025

Jan 16, 2025 |

However L2 wallets for instance will need to interact with L2 state through nodes holding the full L2 state etc-> i.e., they need to interact with L2 in order to compose the L2-targeted payload they will insert to the L1-submitted tx— Michael Sutton (@MichaelSuttonIL) January 16, 2025

read more

Michael Sutton On X: We currently are trying to avoid such approaches where L1 needs to manage L2-specific data (i.e., some form of registry per L2 subnet). If we link back to the L2 gas discussion, the intention there was to use the *same constant* for limiting gas limit per block per L2, and have… pic.twitter.com/gvkd2tP8pS— Michael Sutton January 16, 2025

Jan 16, 2025 |

Michael Sutton On X: We currently are trying to avoid such approaches where L1 needs to manage L2-specific data (i.e., some form of registry per L2 subnet). If we link back to the L2 gas discussion, the intention there was to use the *same constant* for limiting gas limit per block per L2, and have… pic.twitter.com/gvkd2tP8pS— Michael Sutton January 16, 2025

We currently are trying to avoid such approaches where L1 needs to manage L2-specific data (i.e., some form of registry per L2 subnet). If we link back to the L2 gas discussion, the intention there was to use the *same constant* for limiting gas limit per block per L2, and have… pic.twitter.com/gvkd2tP8pS— Michael Sutton (@MichaelSuttonIL) January 16, 2025

read more