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

Storage proof network #194

Draft
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Storage proof network #194

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

markspanbroek
Copy link
Member

@markspanbroek markspanbroek commented Aug 27, 2024

This is a design for an off-chain network for validating storage proofs. Instead of checking each storage proof in a smart contract on-chain, we let the proof network check these proofs. Only when a proof is missing we go on-chain to enact slashing. The main goal of this exercise is to reduce the costs of submitting and validating proofs, which has shown to be a limiting factor for the profitability of storage providers and the scaling of the storage network, even when deploying on a rollup or sidechain.

@markspanbroek markspanbroek changed the title Draft design for a storage proof network Design for a storage proof network Aug 29, 2024
@markspanbroek markspanbroek changed the title Design for a storage proof network Storage proof network Aug 29, 2024
Base automatically changed from codex-side-chain-analysis to master September 30, 2024 10:18

Roles in the network are:

- provers: they are the storage providers that submit storage proofs
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If I may suggest it, rename "provers" to "storage providers" through the text. For someone who is learning about the mechanism, it is less one agent to remember.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants