 Oh, thank you all for attending Yeah, so maybe we start off with What you know what we're? Introduction on what we're researching What we're you know enthusiastic with plasma and then maybe we could do another round on like Actually before that we can maybe like give a I think it would be fun actually to start off with maybe talking about what? one things are good Applications of plasma and what it's good like what what it could be good for what it could maybe not be good for and What one is working on when it comes to? specifically applications and that way there's some context for that So introduction and the interests for each one Yeah, yeah introduction and interests There's a lot of stuff mentioned there Okay, well, I'll just first say what I think are good applications of plasma because I think that's sort of interesting thing here Obviously payments in exchange are like the plasma application at least right now. It's sort of the the thing that's most You know useful or novel But and then kind of makes use of this blockchain as a value store slash exchange thing But it's other stuff that I'm really excited about is gaming in general It's it's one of these things that brings people in and it's simple. It's not threatening You know, I'm willing to put ten dollars into a video game And I don't really care if I never play that video game again and and you know That ten dollars is just gone. That's that's fine. And so The same doesn't apply if we're talking about payments. I expect that my bank app doesn't lose my money But I have different expectations on games. And so I think I think games are actually quite feasible today with plasma as Loom has just made very clear. And I think that people should start looking at that right now I'm highly interested in getting a sort of Plasma Kind of like an SDK set up so that people can just build these games without really understanding what the underlying Plasma chain does Sure, I'm David I feel like with plasma in its current state It's excellent for supporting applications that don't require an incredible amount of interaction with like the rest of the like the root chain ecosystem Just because the way things are right now with the root chain having custody It's super great for modular Modular systems and then also I would say I'm very excited about the potential for plasma chains to kind of Work Like down the road They can be more private than public chains And so excited to see that explored more especially with the plasma cash architecture Where users don't actually have to know about the entire information on on chain The only thing that I believe what makes me interested in plasma as a technique is the fact that you can settle many transactions Whatever they may be whatever information it is without bloating the chain. So, you know, like in the in the casual Let's say Bitcoin logic that you don't want to put any data more than what's necessary and I believe that's a general problem with dApps that Smart contracts they store too much whatever on chain. So, you know, let's put just 32 bytes per whatever amount of time And it's better and yeah payments Okay Well, it's difficult to add to everything was said before I Think you should add two bars first as the ZK based Plasmas or other constructions like the Vitalik proposed with Boston also data on chain Okay The ZK based plasmas as a plasmas where is the state transition is governed by snark or stark or maybe other features ZK construction in principle it is Mainly an ultimate goal you can make an invalid state transition, but you still have the data availability An intermediate solution was introduced by Vitalik in a recent post I think two weeks ago and he's research where it says well put post also data on chain and make it as a public input to your snark and You're good. Well, you blow the transaction data. You pay extra gas cost, but still you can aggregate a lot This is a great approach. I think the ultimate plasma will still be somehow based on ZKP Another part is people forget and we had this discussion a little before Original plasma paper had a part about the my produce functionality There are very limited sets of computation which are still viable this way For example, what you can do right now is you can offload for examples a snark verification of chain For example, there is some game which is governed by a state which the state is governed by a snark in principle the only part you actually care is as a state transition as well it and you can offload the snark verification on Offchain to some operator which you can easily monitor because snark is snark verification is two milliseconds So is verification and it's stateless. So this approach may work But we should maybe focus more on it after we solve the payments and exit problem Yeah, just add to that I guess a lot of people asked me what's the difference between plasma and sidechains and that also plays into the use cases So in general the site on this if you have transactions on a sidechain You basically just need to calculate the amount that you need to bribe the validator So proof-of-work operators with and you know how secure transaction is The main difference I think the plasma is that on plasma you don't do that calculation The answer is you need to bribe the theorem of proof of work So we kind of extend the security of the plasma of the main net onto the plasma chain That is not done with sidechains and I think that works specifically for Exchanges and all apps that have high deposits. So at the moment where an exchange deposit size exceeds the Steak size of the validators it rationally makes sense To steal and that is not true for plasma chains. So that's where these use cases could live I'm super excited about plasma because of the at least for now the you know scalable payments and exchange type stuff because we're close and I think it's really important for just crypto as a whole to like one generate a lot more Assets and to make sure that those assets are very easy to exchange And I think that that will like facilitate the generation of value in our kind of like weird economy And so yeah, I'm hopefully plasma can can play a part in that story So I believe we should take a more structured format because we're just like Talking about the vision. Yeah. Yeah, let's set some like questions like between us to discuss Yeah, but let's let's make sure everyone has what they want to say Yeah, I think it'd be it'd be good to definitely get into that because we have a limited time Can I say this as long as everyone like went through the introductions that they want to make you want to speak Okay, for me like I'm right now my principal area is that You know beyond what everyone said which I do agree with Like 100% I think payments are important and like definitely a lot of advantages over, you know, at least the federated sidechain models Another major thing that I think could be very helpful for at least this ecosystem is that you know you're seeing a lot of you know, Ethereum me twos and a lot of people that want to copy Ethereum and What's interesting is that is that? Ethereum can end up being you know a central point between a lot of different, you know blockchains even even if you know Let's say you want to build a tap ecosystem inside Ethereum I think you know obviously this is that is much more advantage advantageous because you do have you know people that you know The stack is there the community is there developers are there, but even with you know, Ethereum me twos they're probably gonna have to cross through Ethereum and Ethereum can end up being like a central trading point for that as well All right, I have a question. So With respect to sharding it is considered a layer one solution like maybe mechanism because the actual the whole connection between the big conchain and the short chain it is Built in the protocol and there are no gas costs for doing that so I was like kind of playing around with the idea of like forking go Ethereum or priority and make it so that there is a Basically all plasma operations free Okay, but in a way that it's not docible in the same way that how like the proof of stake Aspera design would work and so would that make plasma layer one discuss doesn't make sense Well, first of all all of us of implementers of different kind of flavors of plasma and we'll not name any of those We have the bonds on exits first you should define what is a plasma operation which should be made free and In principle what you're proposing more like a polka dot if there are some special smart contracts, which are free I think it breaks the philosophy of the ecosystem I mean you can make the block spam as an operator as a central party Maybe you can make some other fancy stuff which you can make out right now, but let's start with without this proposal at least Yeah Yeah, it's kind of like the whole like shelling fence type thing where once you start making in protocol changes or like layer one protocol changes Where do you draw the line? I'd be really interested in seeing more like discussion about essentially coupling or like combining Routechain block submission between plasma chains because that's a way to essentially reduce the cost of running plasma chains Without making base layer protocol changes So I think some of my concerns about like and shining anything plasma related in layer one is that like It adds a new like lifeness assumption to to Ethereum validators of people who hold value on Ethereum like you have to Like the protocol says you have to log in once every certain amount of time and like that's not that's not trade-off Everyone wants to make like some people are even unhappy about that like proof of stake adds a weak subjectivity kind of Yeah, yeah, basically that yeah, I definitely agree with Shondji right there. I think when it comes to changes on layer one I mean, this is a little bit tangential, but gets to the point as well I think when it comes to layer one and how it can help plasma I think you know there's there's a dynamic where you know We're dealing with different layers there and communications between them is pretty important So, you know that that may require coordinating coordinating with you know a lot of the core Ethereum research One topic that I do care about and I actually don't know if it's on the road map So maybe tell me if this is there isn't Carl is some type of calculation for basically the gas costs per block and I think some type of metric for that can be really helpful on the plasma side because it makes the you know more robust exiting games and Reliability on that could be pretty helpful But is not necessary for plasma, but you know, you may you may see these dynamics We're like, you know, whether it be contracts or layer two type things, you know can be helpful for layer one in the opposite perspective Yeah, that's actually a good point. I mean the the whole gas Market is actually going to get revamped with the the Ethereum 2.0 And you can kind of like read about that and Vitalik's like he has a paper out there And so yeah, I think it should be more viable Consistent right just push it to stack like yeah I'm up code where it like pushes Let's say not even like all the blocks like not storing all the blocks like gas costs But maybe like maybe the previous ones with the current one. Why not? That seems very reasonable. Yeah What is the change? I'm basically you push on to stack maybe some cop code where you push on to the stack the the Maybe you have some very assign a variable basically some What the gas costs on that block was oh like to see to to read what the gas prices Oh, yeah, yeah, sorry for context in the audience Right now doing gas cost estimation in contracts on recent blocks is difficult We have something like that where we assume that if there is more than one operator They compete for the next block Just think along this way and then you know when when the header is submitted We can just do message gas and then we save that and take the average over the last x blocks Yeah, it's specifically an example where Yeah, that definitely is a good idea But for exits this this this can be beneficial as well because that way you can you can have maybe relative bond sizes Relative to the cost of exiting when you when you exit, right? You want to be able to pay for whoever is going to challenge you you want to be able to pay for their gas cost And so doing that is a little bit tricky and you probably have to overestimate and it would be helpful to have this kind of Protocol be nice Comment I have to make about that is like the current gas The current gas market is not designed to be like resistant to manipulation if people are relying on If people are relying on it for To have an accurate metric of to have an accurate metric of this is how much you you have to pay in order to guarantee inclusion in the block It's very hard to predict gas prices in the future as one might imagine because we don't necessarily know like there was We thought a lot about like let's make it so that you can send a transaction That's guaranteed to be included in a block in the future But that gets so funky because then you're like, okay What are the actual gas price like they're weird manipulations that you can do if you thought gas token was weird This just gets very confusing. So I was about to say that that in my opinion. I'm considering implementing Basically gas token. So the gas token construction is it exploits a market in efficiency where you can just buy gas at a very low Low price and you can reuse it at some later point And so I was thinking that maybe like you can have like a minor Inside the plasma contract, which just like makes useless operations during the night or wherever like the the gas price is low And so like if currently if I buy gas it like took away like and I submit one block per like 15 seconds Maybe it costs 100,000 per year. It sucks. But if you bought at 0.1 UA, which is totally feasible like with this inefficiency Basically the cost is totally manageable. However You're exploiting an inefficiency and the moment that people other people also start using it Then this inefficiency goes away. So it is not it is totally a hack that is temporarily That's only temporary solution and to be clear. These are all optimizations. Yeah, it still works without this stuff Yeah, but still any optimization or just anything which would use is an efficiency of any market and The sirium is large so a huge market is still great because People do the same as NASA areas and you need to do this and could be helpful for many other smart contracts Is basically this is dynamic regarding the fee market I the gap so actually there's the market for gas for the bonds that you put up also like when you're making an exit So I would like to initially the discussion the incentives of minors from training challenge of transactions And like how would you approach it? My current understanding is that you can do it with a commitment, but still that commitment also leaks information There's the current effort on somewhere submarine sense that essentially you you make a commitment that is more stealthy Yeah, I would be interested if you have an opinion on that Specifically the commitments for How to a plasma block or how to how to avoid the question is how to avoid the challenge from training I'm challenge front-nining with regards to exiting on the main chain or always to the main chain, okay? Oh I make an exit and somebody must challenge me. I put a 0.1 ether bond somebody goes to challenge me They put up they go they make the transaction the minors is it they make the transaction before the challenger Okay, and that means that they sweep the they get the bond, right the minor right, right, this is an implicit like This is a fee on top of this essentially creates a secondary market Which it complicates how like the miners can calculate their profits Due to how like you're no longer based on this like gas model and essentially It's based like it adds incentive to censor transactions So you lose fees that are on their one, but you gain on fees that are on layer two How would you model this approach? Essentially, yeah, basically what you mean, I think correct me if I'm wrong so I can describe it to the audience is this dynamic whereby a Proof of invalid invalidity or some type of proof basically doesn't have a signature attached to it necessarily whereby That's not about that I'm talking about the simple fact that the minor can simply or another user can monitor the chain similar to the To the bank or inefficiency if anybody else is familiar with that that essentially you front-run and transaction and if I Can't like the penalty. No, no, no, no, no, no, so I make an exit on chain. Yeah, okay I make I put up a bond. Mm-hmm. It is an invalid exit. We don't care about that We care about the same the economics regarding the challengers and then the minor basically publishes the No, no, no, the exit has happened. It's okay. The exit has been initiated Okay, and now somebody wants to challenge the exit They challenge the challenge is a valid challenge. Yep. Okay, but somebody else comes in front runs Yeah, this means that if there is a way for people to front-run your transactions Yep, you no longer are guaranteed to profit from the transactions. Yes, and their rational Decision is to stop challenging. Mm-hmm. Is what I'm saying. Yeah Yeah, I'm claiming the same thing basically the game that's running broadcast it the person that's going to front-run most likely is the Miner. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah point being that front-running it directly impacts the security of the chain Mm-hmm. Yeah, very likely does because people will stop challenging if they get front-run by the miners Mm-hmm. And then the miners are in the perfect position where they control both the layer to simply by playing this game where they simply Bullied people out of challenging. Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely a risk with a lot of these things There's multiple there's multiple mitigations. You can do basically I don't like this But you know a naive solution would be to you Do some commit reveal whereby basically you commit to a hash similar to a Foxcoin construction You know Joe Bono in 2014 wrote, you know, Foxcoin you do something like that where you commit to the hash of what it ever It is that you're going to do namecoin does something similar The there are significant issues with this to be able in in terms of complexity with the smart contract code I think some type of model where you're splitting up the penalty or maybe pre-committing where penalties go to Is probably shorter in terms of lines of code So for example, you can assign let's say 50% of the penalty as part of this specific output Goes to these sets of people and those are the sets of people responsible for publishing But then you made you just made the challenge mechanism not trustless Yeah, I'm just saying that that is a possibility if you already have someone watching on your behalf, I mean Okay, but trustless watch towers are in thrill. Are they? Um, what do you it depends what you mean by trustless watch towers, but basically Yeah, I mean basically you would have to do some type of commit reveal then as a consequence And that does extend out the challenge period and probably increases the exit code by like, you know At least well lines of code the Kelvin had an idea had a point in a gender about the submarine commitments Calvin, can you explain it in short? I read the documents and well more or less it just get and I have one question Which will need to be answered later sure, so the problem with just just standard commit reveal is that Usually well the fact that I'm committing is leaking information about the fact that I am going to make an action I'm not telling you what the action is, but Still you can front-run the commitment you can recommit right so or if you cannot really allow to That's the this so we might talk about different things But I think the strongest attack is is not to front-run the commitment It's to notice that a commitment has happened and then and then go and check all the eggs. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. That's that's the point Right, so that I if I'm a minor The original problem is that if I see a challenge I can just execute the challenge and boom I'll see that it's a valid challenge So I'll front run it and I'll take the fee instead of the person who actually did the work to spot the error and And and throw the challenge so the the first solution that you could do is make a commitment So somebody is is asked to commit to making a challenge before actually revealing the challenge information The problem with this is that it leaks the information that somebody is going to challenge later And so what they do is It doesn't look that somebody will challenge it looks that somebody made an action Intent at least that somebody somebody made an action and and because somebody is forced to make an action Before challenging later, right? We've we've asked people to commit then reveal A minor can say okay I saw a commitment so now I'm going to check it and then I'm gonna front-run and I'm gonna I'm gonna get my commitment in first and so so the problem with this is that it's the same exact same exact issue That a minor they don't have to do any work until somebody else does the work then they can do it They can spot the problem front-run it and take the fee and which kind of destroys the whole thing so so generally that the idea of these submarine commitments is that you make a commitment in a way that You're not leaking the information that you have made a commitment, right? so so you basically send a transaction to some random address and then you later prove that you made a transaction to that random address and Nobody can tell that you made a commitment in advance and and so the benefit of this is that you're not leaking the Information that you you may you might be planning to act later on and so you don't have this front-running problem But it is significantly more complex than than not having this, right? I think from my perspective is I think you know given given your worst case You're just I actually don't think it's that bad, you know Like if it ends up being the miner just ends up collecting the fees that amounts to being burning the coins right from it from an individual's perspective and I think that's acceptable because because there is no equilibrium in that situation because you Challenges will stop even though there are invalid oh, I think there's sufficient incentive to do challenges anyway Like I'm not I'm not totally concerned with that. Yeah, I agree I mean the the cool thing about like plasma cash and plasma from these kinds of Merkle tree where you own a particular subtree The cool thing is that you have a very strong incentive to challenge no matter what even if you're not gonna Even if you're gonna not make any money from this like your coins are at risk Basically, I think what we're talking about is what what I think the implication if we wanted to hone down on your concern churches is that if you can get what you want in terms of your goals on Bond sizes to decrease dramatically I think that's the end result because I think Effectively if you're talking about your worst case, it's possible that the bond size will get fairly large and maybe maybe you know large enough that you have to be fairly capitalized in order to do it and Definitely, it's a it's a research opportunity that I think will make a pretty big difference in terms of the end usability In terms of whether one outsources once exits in terms of the in sort of you know, like trading the coins trading the the the actual value So I think it is a really really important thing to do But given the worst case I think you know effectively the bond sizes if you increase it enough then The probability of you personally watching it should be sufficient So then the problem reduces to parameterizing probably and so I'm curious on the How would you probably parameterize both the bonds and the duration of a dispute period? That's a really good question. I thought I would be interested in a good like market analysis of how that would be Yeah, so so the other thing is that there was sort of the scorched earth version of this which was if you can prove That an invalid exit went through you burn the entire contract down And so it creates like a massive negative incentive for you to not challenge, right? And so we have this problem in plasma VP where This wouldn't happen in plasma cash You don't need this in plasma cash But in plasma VP of this problem where you know if I make an invalid exit for for $5 or whatever, you know points zero whatever ETH Then if it goes through the people who who take the loss are the people at the end of the priority queue It's the people it's it's not necessarily me, right? So it could be you know, it's just some random person And so you that that person would They're the only person who's going to experience the negative impact of this And so we can make other people experience the negative impact of this if we basically say we will burn down the entire contract Throw away all the money if you ever let this happen, which is like, you know Probably not a great solution, but I thought it was fun and it's a good I think it's great I think that there's like a general rule here where when you're designing these like economic crypto economic mechanisms You don't socialized losses are generally scary because it's this kind of common goods problem, right with this prisoner's dilemma We you know, it's not really gonna affect me. I'm gonna exit before them So why do I even care about this $5 that's going to be stolen? I can exist on a fractional reserve as long as I get out first, right? That's those kinds of weird incentives where you you share the burden of you know a You know challenging or whatever it is pretty bad The better incentives are when you are directly affected and only you are directly affected And so you have a the the person who is supposed to act in response to this is like very very clear And I think bond sizing is is is a really important topic that I think even even us are not necessarily experts in I think it's something where you know, it applies to a lot of smart contracts in this space You know state channels are another example of this where you know bond sizing In relation gas fees are an important topic And you know it affects a whole host of contracts So if you're interested in or have an economics background or interested in this topic It's something which you know, everybody in the space would be very appreciative of you know You're interested in doing research in this. Yeah as I go in the question I had is there is still in direct or leaking of information in a submarine case because it's Unfortunately due to the technical perspective how it's implemented you do the transaction to some external smart contract address of which you know Because you know some data which you need to publish so it will be gene this Address for the contract will be recalculated. It's just as a problem if your transaction to this contract is somewhere some Fancy amount I very small for example. It's leaking information if it's an average It basically just well If it's if it's more or less like an order in transaction, especially in the high season periods when transaction amount for example Hi, it most likely Means you need to have the higher amount to even start the challenge and it's becomes like another problem The challenger should have at the worst case more than it would be just necessary to just Maybe allow different from you And just indirect kind of indirect loss and as a side comment I think you know the reason why you know We do need a lot of people Researching plasma and why you know a lot of people are making significant contributions is you need a lot of eyes on this For example one thing like I just realized it's just now sitting here Is you know a tack factor because like when you're talking about game theory? You need you need a lot of eyes on this to understand the game theory an attack factor on the submarine is Construction that I was just thinking of and correct me if I'm wrong this this is viable is you know I always if I'm an attacker. I'm always going to publish a submarine Proof yeah, yeah, would you Like you try to steal the submarine proofs You attempt to steal the penalty by always publishing a submarine proof I don't reveal it, but when someone else reveals it, I also reveal my submarine proof The submarine proof has to commit to the challenge. Yeah So I'm committing to my own my own my own invalid exit But then I mean you start an invalid exit and yourself prevented Yeah, so basically like I I publish an invalid exit. I also publish a hash of the proof of the dispute That's useful because when someone else publishes a penalty. I can claim that I did it before that. Oh So submarine proof it is It is very well linked to you. I think Yeah, so so so what I'm saying is that like anyone in the audience can come up with interesting constructions and disputes on Whatever mechanism that we're all coming up with and it's something that's very very important to do and I'm not sure that this actually works But you know is an example of you know something which you know Why why the community when it comes to smart contract development is really really important to you know Get everyone involved and have a lot of eyes look at this Oh, yeah, Q&A would Sorry guys skill built over here and with thousand TPS how will it affect plasma negatively positively If layer one scales will it make layer two obsolete is the question So my understanding is that any time that you can commit less data to the chain you do it if you can do it That's like pretty obvious. So there is always the need for layer two Yeah, I Think that they're going to be different properties of the main chain and of plasma chains plasma chains are just going to have like you know Maybe it's tons of scalability and you know exchange kind of built-in and maybe fast Finality or something like this and something that I was thinking about it's like okay Does does plasma work in a sharded context? I was like, oh, well, there's actually a really simple Construction which allows you to say okay I'm going to take one plasma chain and I'm going to hook it up to 10 chart shard chains And then all 10 shard chains will be able to deposit Deposit assets into the single massive plasma chain And so then everyone's able to do kind of like native atomic swaps Across these different shards. So like how does it work? It's very simple. It's very simple. I promise It's it sounds like the vision the dream, but I'm not sure how realistic is oh, so I would love to one contract in each shard Yep, let me let me be more precise Watches multiple shots. Boom. I'm playing for this. It sounds unrealistic to me Well, I mean well first we need a three two point. Oh, and we need like I honestly I prefer like to be more like, you know Practical. Well, the thing is It's scary to research something and then be like oh this new technology is coming out Does that just totally obsolete all of what I'm doing Jeff? I'm so curious It doesn't matter so much about access to plasma from shards because for at least for fungible token flows because you can just Instant swap in channels between a channel literally anywhere in the ecosystem and a channel on plasma anyways So the only thing you need the connection between plasma in the main chain for in terms of fungible tokens is Managing net capital flows and arbitrage. We should happen like just every once in a while. It doesn't even matter like people people don't even care Yes, the example of something similar was that you can hook the plasma more to the more than that just its real flavor and Well with some problems which arise because you can commit different blocks different headers and everything I should be in time and available But this is quite similar so we can try this first if you and then we'll see how it goes Maybe some fancy market between the chains. We will see maybe between this x-dai chain with this authority, but stable coin inside of it swap it to serum inside the plasma Let's make other fancy ideas. I Was under the assumption that the x-dai chain is a trusted the environment Yeah But to to also extend your point from a different fast set, you know state channels Are also relevant in relation to plasma and will continue to be if you want things like instant finality and can be probably likely be the You know front end interface at least for most people So I also have a completely unrelated question Which is why are you guys spending time on this RSA community or stuff when you should just verify your state transitions. I Totally agree with you There is really conflicting with Carl's There's different perspectives on this. So maybe we should I'm aware that I'm being contentious Like one well, I got a slight disagree with that like verifying the state verifying state transitions has like a like You might get a low marginal cost eventually, but you see you always pay the base cost but with something like plasma cash you can get down to like one a store per like like 20,000 gas per Transaction without without any like kind of batching thing Yeah, that's what I mean. That's why yeah, so that's one advantage that you can't get with Yeah, the problem with this is DK based construction They should encounter for more than just cost of postings of snark But well state transition or something like this any other construction. It also boils down if you want Like one prover which would make your blocks You should have the mechanism in the case you don't publish the call data to the contract You publish the block separately you should have the mechanism to solve the availability if you have competing operators Your cost increases because to calculate the snark is not easy It's not cheap and now you have to multiply by the number of competing operators who should get Well for those they should be reasonable to get the profits from it. So basically a transaction cost increases This is also an area of research Also in other way of research which you didn't talk today. We had a some discussion occurred there is how you can make the stateless block Validation which was a recent paper published. I think I thank you for George's for link as research at wrecks. Yeah You can make a block validator completely stateless. You can write it on mobile device You can have like almost absolute life mess hundred mean hundreds of thousands of users No Not the balanced one for now. We take some of the vector commits and we can discuss later was they're not usable right now So you there are various areas of research the stateless validation is great just because we want life mess We want someone watching at least someone the same way as for assuming to bone don't you want someone to run this fancy hardware with VDF you want someone to monitor the plasma just someone and Then it will work. Otherwise. Well, we need to work in user experience validation and everything So yeah, more people can change the research is better as well Research may be difficult implementation is still great because you need to test so many things How is it work? How we make the user experience? So just please join even if you don't want to research You won't just write the code Yeah, I think we you know we always you know the space always needs better systems engineers and more systems engineers. I think Yeah, and in addition to your question, I think You know having having a baseline using minimal fancy cryptography is good And then having fancy cryptography used to make everything better easier faster I think it's a good rule of thumb in the space and you know that that makes a very strong measurable improvement Maybe a personal story. So I got into this plasma research as well. And I was kind of like Going strong on ethereum style contracts and I thought there's nothing wrong with them And then Kelvin wrote a bunch of interesting blog articles talking about how actually a ledger, you know Tracks assets. It doesn't necessarily Contracts should maybe not be first-class citizens on on assets on on ledgers and the whole plasma research has kind of led Me to kind of rethink The architecture of ethereum and kind of find that there could be a way more efficient setup where in Bitcoin you kind of have fat blocks, but a thin state in ethereum You have thin blocks of fat state, but we could go with thin blocks in thin state Yeah, I think I was loud enough But still is this a trade-off was Kelvin was talking about until it's formalized Well light client on light blocks like ideal scenario, but still most likely there are trade-offs Maybe there is not something like external computation powers. It should be made to make some blocks and one fun Ethereum 2.0 note is that the first focus and the main focus is providing a Massive stream of available ordered data that you can rely on and trust right? This is in fact the most primitive in my opinion because it is literally just information that we have consensus on and Information can be interpreted in whatever way you want So if you want a different kind of ethereum, you know EVM or if you want to you know put Bitcoin or Zcash directly on ethereum and use that kind of data stream That's super cool And in fact it needs to happen Please do and we're gonna see all of these alternative execution engine Constructions probably pop up very soon, but we're like getting ethereum down to its essence. She's very exciting So you're basically saying when the base layer becomes cheap enough we can use plasma to absorb other chains No, you could just make fancy construction with plasma VM. Yeah, something like this Just you need the data stream and publish every single chain. No data availability problem whatsoever Actually, actually if I can I'm like I'm really excited about the the data availability thing But like from a texany point of view like like they've been called data layer 2 execution engines before and It's basically like a mechanism which relies on the root chain for for for data availability Yeah, so like we could call it plasma everyone but like it's it is it is useful to I think keep a distinction between things like plasma Cash, which which don't rely which don't rely on that And and things which do Yeah, yeah roll up would be an example of something that relies on Ethereum for data availability All right, so I want to start an argument here We go what up? Yeah, thanks So my question is you mentioned a little bit earlier about the original plasma paper And how you use the map reduce Mechanism and how that doesn't necessarily fit into most use case. I'm kind of curious like what kind of use case would fit into It's still like necessary like for example, we deal with time series data with that, you know It's that kind of that use case and then secondary question The original paper has like multiple layers and is that layering just for the mass exit mechanism Is that is that layering even necessary anymore? So basically right now? We're not even at that stage the presumption is is I think what we're realizing is the scalability benefits That you can get simply by having one plasma chain is probably going to be sufficient for the overwhelming use cases The the the notion of nesting gives you the benefit of you know Scalability within the context of you know, perhaps, you know, you don't want to destroy Engineering-wise it's a lot easier to have computation that can fit on one server Right, that's that's simply like if you ask any distributed systems engineer like once you have, you know Some state across multiple servers the engineering challenges blows up and that's fine to do if you have no other choice And it's sort of a model of how you can do that For a lot of state across different, you know That that goes beyond that Right now the problem sets that we're dealing with probably can be done on one, you know High-powered server or a set of high-powered servers Or so specifically one's a high-powered servers and you can eventually go into a set of high-powered servers by making nested commitments We're not writing any of the code for that right now simply because or doing any designs for that right now Simply because it's not we're not even seeing a need for that necessarily the the context for the map reduce construction within within that need is Within that within that within that process is that essentially There's a problem in relation to a lot of UTXO like constructions whereby UTXO like constructions Don't do global state that well It's sort of like in terms of data structures if you can only do link lists and you can't do maps or arrays right like It's sort of like well What can you really do with this right when you're dealing with global state essentially you need to have some type of You know global agreement or consensus So it's a statement that you basically have the plasma chain be processing global consensus And that's basically what what we're doing right now Yeah, regarding the map reduces I well, maybe I shouldn't mention this construction How we can afloat this narc execution of chain but in principle as Kelvin mentioned there should be either clear ownership of state Which you can exit and in most of our cases for now the state is a value if you don't If your state is something abstract which you can live with Having exiting like the previous state at some point and just saying well This is a previous one which is the last wallet and I can just to float all the computation I'm fine with exiting like the previous like the last while it stayed on chain and doing something with it in the worst case Narrow then you can put the computation inside so you can make it like offloading computation of change the same way as Everyone want to do with the snarks Verified on chain with the starks verified on chain you can do something similar It's the idea is not huge and you can just try to make it But very limited set of computations which you can use and like maybe games can be done this way Well Games can be done on snarks at least Sorry Cool, all right five-second argument plasma naming scheme is bad and you should feel bad So So my you know we had this kind of meme Naming scheme right where we went off Bitcoin forks. So we had plasma cash plasma XT What else did we have plasma gold? Plasma and G whatever right so and it's totally involved into this problem where in order to be I mean the idea is like to capture This design that you've created with one name and refer to the design with that name And so now it's been this thing where like incremental benefits like tiny little improvements are allocated their own entire name Which makes you know kind of no sense and and then also like people have been Taking this as I in order for my design to be taken seriously I need to assign it a name and so you have this massive bloat of the of the plasma name space and it's super confusing I think it's just like it makes it really hard for me to refer to what I'm actually talking about when there's like 18 different names So I think it's considered harmful. I Mean, I like the idea of naming things. I think that we should just be careful about You know unless it's something totally novel like I like plasma prime being named its own thing Is it's just it's a ton of work that's been done over the last few months put into its thing And it really refers to a large improvement over plasma cash, but like micro improvements, right? It just designs that aren't well fleshed out. I feel like we should Present the ideas and then it's only when it's really solidified into a package Should it be assigned a name and I would my vote here is that we take that naming scheme apart But I am open arguments against this I think we're short on time. Let me bring the mic to this guy and while I bring the mic Oh, he got I just want to ask in your opinion. For example, what's what's the best challenge time for the for the challenge period? Well, that's the question is we actually don't know and that's why you know, you know, like I think we can Take a lot of the work used for state channels as of late But that is something which is ultimately up to, you know, the user the plasma chain and you know, what type of risk models And if I may very quick, you already said that that in your opinion But the best solution is to put this plasma cash on one server and operate to even like one super server So you have like one operator, right? And in that point What's not necessarily the case it could be a set of validators You know like for example the most naive construction would be around Robin of validators for example So it's like be peer-to-peer network. Yeah, it would be done across, you know, some propagated peer-to-peer network You just want the entire state to be able to be represented on a single machine on a single machine. Yeah, okay The idea is sort of like on Ethereum, you know, you know, you don't you don't have one single server running Ethereum Everyone replicates it, but it can be run on a single machine currently with sharding, of course, you know You have a more distributed model I like to just answer his question in a like I This is like a slightly more technical thing But I think the biggest challenge like we haven't quite figured out is like some people disagree with me is like Proof compression for plasma cash. So like I think the two best candidates are like On the one hand using RSA accumulators and on the other hand like proof compression using using using stocks And like I think both have both have their downsides Like like the RSA accumulators are not quantum secure. They're not They have like the engineering it is I think pretty complicated and whereas for For as stock compression Like chartry doesn't compress doesn't run very well in in a stark and like the stock friendly hash functions are very expensive on chain That's my it's my personal view But like I think if that is I think if that is solved like we get like the list of features is is pretty nice Just to a little bit emphasize what Joseph said You can have any set of validators for a new plasma block But ideally to just to plainly reduce the cost you want your data to produce a block and the Place where you take all the transactions from users You want it as central as possible just to reduce the costs if you have competing Producers use multiply by the number of producers amount of fees you would want to expect from the block Otherwise, it's not profitable for them to run the hardware. So it's again a trade-off, but There are there are ways to well not ways to solve it. You understand every Strategy and most likely just need to say it's a set of validators and be less signature Yeah, I think yeah, what about censorship resistance like if you have one operator then it's not a feature My mental model is that and it also relates with fees in plasma I believe that you should consider that your transaction is by default censored and you should feel nice when it gets included and This is a this is what allows you to like any kind of transaction fees They don't have to be in the protocol because I can literally go to run. Yeah, I can tell him you're my operator by default He's censoring me That is the default and like if he checks have I have he has he paid me my five PayPal dollars this month? Yes, I'll let the transaction go through Yeah, and this is totally like good for like the fee model because it's totally independent It's like you have a whatever service that you're providing because you're the operator You must be operating something you have some for-profit and yeah, I believe that's the value That's the proper way to think if you want stronger guarantees change your root chain smart contract to be able to process it On the root chain as well to be reflected in the plasma. Yeah. Yeah. I think we're running low on time Just this is just purely for redundancy purposes to I think like y'all made a lot of good points And like all of us would love to go do more research on some of the points that you made But we never got through introduction So we only got half of your names to do further research So can we just go back and get everybody's name so that we can go research some of the points that y'all made on our Own did some of you not on the walking up do the introduction. We'll just we'll just do it really quick Hi Kelvin Fischer Josephine Schenzi David not George's Constantopoulos. It's long River kefir Alex Vlasov Alexander for a full name Johann Barbie Carl Flirsch and and I think there's a bunch of you know, I don't I don't want to discount all the other people working on plasma I think you know, you know people like Dan Robinson couldn't make it There's a lot of people writing excellent implementation a lot of people, you know like people like you know Or state walk they're not they they're not represented up here But definitely have been doing a lot of excellent work a lot of other other other people projects And I think you know a lot of people making comments on ETH research and you know, this is a very you know The the community is designed to be very inclusive. I think you know, it's called the plasma You know implementers group, but it seems to be plasmas mechanism designers group And there's a lot of implementations as well And they definitely you know if you do want to contribute, you know I think there's an opportunity to be making measurable differences and positive differences as well ETH research and learn plasma But if I may say one thing like lately I noticed that in ETH research some posts like you open a new thread Just to ask a question. Don't do that. Just post a reply on the existing threads because it's impossible to follow the There's that and secondly I believe that the actual contributions to this like not to sound hostile or anything it must be technical like try to search what has been answered already because Like there are a few good resources and if there are not like we're compiling some which are pretty like All in one but generally like in the classic forum mentality like don't ask the same things Maybe add issues to learn plasma. I sounded like really hostile, but like it is what it is and I think you know This is an open community as well, but definitely keep it as technical as possible. I would agree with that And but you know, this is a you know inclusive community Definitely, you know look at ETH research We're going through the scientific process of learning how to you know do all this stuff. Thank you. Thank you