Ryan Sean Adams

It seems unnecessary.

It seems like is there a way where we can not do all of that extra work and still have a blockchain?

And it

parallel to that as you said with like the ethereum layer twos what we understand is that there is a way to not do this and that is with zk proofs so in addition to the technological progress of blockchains as a whole we can make them more efficient we can you know we can juice some of the throughput but on a parallel path there are there are cryptographic algorithms that instead of allowing

or forcing everyone to do the re-execution, you can simply verify a cryptographic hash, a cryptographic proof.

And that part is trivial.

It's easy to verify.

It's hard to produce in the same way a block in a blockchain is hard to produce, but it's trivial to verify the correctness of a cryptographic proof.

And that's kind of the trick.

That's where we remove the re-execution.

A great Elon Musk quote here is, the best part is no part at all.

And what a cryptographic proof does is it removes the whole part of re-execution.

So blocks in a blockchain get executed once, and then no one has to actually re-execute it.

They can just trivially verify it, which allows for a lot of redundant work to get removed from the system.

And that allows for just work being constrained down to one block producer.

And then everyone else is just like, thumbs up, that is correct.

And we really like take off the brakes off of a blockchain system.

Now, the reason why Bitcoin wasn't built like this in the first place, the reason why Ethereum wasn't built or any other blockchain wasn't built like this in the first place was, you know,

Technological progress along cryptographic hashes also needed to mature.

Maybe you could like take everything that I just said and run with it, but also talk about just like the technological parallel path of cryptographic proofs as they've been progressing alongside blockchains.