mirror of
https://github.com/lux-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-10-30 18:15:21 +00:00
Every rendered "T-Chain" / "ThresholdVM" / "teleportvm" reference across the paper corpus is rewritten to the correct canonical chain by concern: threshold signing / MPC / bridge custody / key recovery -> M-Chain (MVM); FHE / encrypted compute / threshold decryption -> F-Chain (FVM); teleport / cross-chain messaging -> B-Chain (bridgevm); consensus Pulsar stays Q-Chain. Section lux-trust-kernel/03-t-chain-threshold-governance.tex renamed -> 03-f-chain-encrypted-policy.tex (with \input + xref fixes). Braided "T-Chain" sections split by concern (M vs F). Only lp-020's chain-separation rationale and the shared lux/chains/thresholdvm library path retain the name, to record the removal. All changed papers rebuilt (pdflatex, rc=0, no undefined refs). ยง09 of lux-dao-governance-framework reframed: fabricated "production deployment" metrics ($50M/$240k/$12M, survey %s, "as of Oct 2024") relabeled as illustrative design configurations with no invented replacements; reality noted (DAO treasury is a 1/1 Safe); conclusion echo + one "first production" overclaim softened. This commit also captures concurrent corpus workstreams on the same tree. Co-authored-by: Hanzo Dev <[email protected]>
70 lines
4.4 KiB
TeX
70 lines
4.4 KiB
TeX
\section{Introduction}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:introduction}
|
|
%% ============================================================================
|
|
|
|
Data availability is the foundational liveness requirement of any blockchain that separates
|
|
execution from consensus. A block is \emph{data-available} if every honest participant can
|
|
reconstruct the full block data from the information published at consensus time. Without
|
|
this guarantee, an adversary can propose a block header that commits to invalid state
|
|
transitions while withholding the data needed for anyone to prove fraud~\cite{albassam2018fraud}.
|
|
|
|
Traditional monolithic blockchains ensure data availability trivially: every full node
|
|
downloads every block. This approach does not scale. As throughput targets increase from
|
|
tens to thousands of transactions per second, the bandwidth required of every full node
|
|
grows proportionally, centralizing the network among well-provisioned operators. The
|
|
\emph{data availability problem} asks whether there exists a mechanism allowing nodes with
|
|
limited bandwidth---\emph{light nodes}---to gain high confidence in data availability without
|
|
downloading the full data.
|
|
|
|
The insight behind \emph{data availability sampling} (DAS) is that erasure coding inflates
|
|
block data with redundancy, so that the entire block can be reconstructed from any sufficiently
|
|
large fraction of the coded data. Light nodes sample a small number of random chunks and
|
|
verify them against a succinct commitment embedded in the block header. If the block producer
|
|
has withheld too many chunks, with high probability at least one of the sampled positions
|
|
will be missing, and the light node will reject the block.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Motivation within the Lux Ecosystem}
|
|
|
|
The Lux Network is a multi-chain platform in which application-specific blockchains---called
|
|
\emph{appchains}---share a common validator infrastructure via the Primary Network. Each appchain
|
|
may define its own virtual machine, state format, and transaction semantics, but all appchains
|
|
rely on the Primary Network for validator management and cross-chain messaging.
|
|
|
|
In this architecture, data availability acquires a multi-dimensional character. A appchain block
|
|
is relevant only to the subset of validators running that appchain's VM, yet cross-appchain
|
|
messages (via Lux Teleport, LP-6332, riding on Lux Warp 2.0) require that the \emph{source} data is available to the
|
|
\emph{destination} validators for fraud proofs or ZK verification. A naive solution---requiring
|
|
all validators to download all appchain data---collapses the scalability benefit of appchains.
|
|
|
|
Lux-DAS resolves this tension by providing a \emph{shared DA layer} that offers global
|
|
verifiability with local storage. Each appchain's data is erasure-coded and committed
|
|
independently; the commitments are aggregated into the Primary Network block header. Any
|
|
light client on any appchain can verify that any other appchain's data is available by sampling
|
|
from the shared commitment structure, without downloading the foreign appchain's data in full.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Contributions}
|
|
|
|
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
|
|
\item We formalize the Lux-DAS protocol, specifying erasure coding parameters, commitment
|
|
structure, sampling procedures, and reconstruction guarantees (\Cref{sec:protocol}).
|
|
\item We prove that Lux-DAS achieves $(1 - (3/4)^s)$-confidence data availability for
|
|
light clients sampling $s$ cells (yielding $\lambda \approx 0.415\,s$ bits of soundness), and that an adversarial block producer
|
|
cannot equivocate without detection by $O(k^2 / s)$ sampling nodes (\Cref{sec:security}).
|
|
\item We introduce appchain-scoped commitment aggregation, reducing per-validator bandwidth
|
|
proportional to the number of appchains (\Cref{sec:protocol:aggregation}).
|
|
\item We present benchmark results from a Lux testnet deployment, comparing against
|
|
EIP-4844 and Celestia on throughput, latency, and proof size (\Cref{sec:evaluation}).
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Paper Organization}
|
|
|
|
\Cref{sec:background} reviews erasure coding, polynomial commitments, and prior DAS
|
|
constructions. \Cref{sec:protocol} describes the Lux-DAS protocol in full detail.
|
|
\Cref{sec:security} provides formal security analysis. \Cref{sec:implementation} discusses
|
|
system architecture and engineering decisions. \Cref{sec:evaluation} presents empirical
|
|
results. \Cref{sec:related} compares Lux-DAS to related work. \Cref{sec:conclusion} concludes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
%% ============================================================================
|