Recursive ZKP ? L2 ? Integration with Locutus

Research and development
1
  1. How does state commitment compare to recursive zkp, like Mina ? They both achieve similar effect of ‘fast sync’ / light client. How fast is Mel’s light client sync, and why not ZK compress the process ?
  2. Would there be a layer two like https://aztec.network , or something as capable as that.
  3. Does it make sense to use Locutus (freenet2) with Mel light client ? Further, tightly integrate them ?

Both of 1 provide a hash of current chain state. And with this hash we can upgrade networks like Locutus to have consensus. I see two ways

  1. Use Mel with Locutus in the app, which doesn’t require official integration.
  2. Use Mel in Locutus contracts. This supplies Mel chain state to contract verification process.

I believe Locutus is superior to Fediverse/Matrix, see this.

  1. Could Melodeon Lang provide features like formal verification ?
2

afaik, Mel is even better for L2s like aztec

nullchinchilla has talked with lunarpunks about this (they are implementing their own sets of blockchain & crypto)

ZKPs add compute costs and complexity

1 Like
3

no, zkp is definitely a bonus.

the compute cost is negligible.

1 Like
4

ZKP’s will be a very important part of Mel’s eventual ecosystem.

Part of this will of course be the usual on-chain suspects — zkrollups etc. A big future milestone is to optimize the MelVM interpreter for implementing novel cryptography on-chain, including ZKP functionality.

But a big underexplored field is off-chain ZKP within off-chain peer-to-peer networks that use Mel for something else, like antisybil or PKI. e.g. how Fulgor/Rayo uses off-chain ZKPs to anonymize Lightning-Network-style payment channels, while the on-chain part requires no ZKP.

(And Fulgor/Rayo uses old ZKP from years ago; modern techniques would yield much better performance)