mirror of
https://github.com/lux-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-10-30 18:15:21 +00:00
zeekayandHanzo Dev
05654dbb0b
Both sides had a month of work and 89 files collided. Resolved by two rules, in order. FIRST, a deletion that states its reason stands. Thirteen files came back as "deleted by us, modified by them": eight the compliance sweep removed because we hold no licence for securities/ATS/BD/TA material, five a dropped cross-stack audit. A merge that resurrects them republishes exactly what that sweep took down, so they stay deleted. The one file the other side deleted goes too — it is a .github workflow, and CI has one path now. SECOND, for the rest, the later edit wins — EXCEPT where the other lineage carries a correction this one never received. It never received "replace fabricated DEX perf claims with measured numbers", so on the twenty-seven files that commit touched its numbers win regardless of date. Recency would have republished 9.13B orders/sec over a measured 104--126M fills/sec: the same claim the correction was written to remove, restored because it was typed later. Everything new on the other side arrives: AIVM, the trust-fabric and entropy papers, the research library. Co-authored-by: Hanzo Dev <[email protected]>
162 lines
5.8 KiB
TeX
162 lines
5.8 KiB
TeX
\section{Conclusion}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:conclusion}
|
|
%% ============================================================================
|
|
|
|
We have presented Lux-DAS, a data availability sampling protocol designed for the multi-chain
|
|
architecture of the Lux Network. By combining two-dimensional Reed-Solomon erasure coding,
|
|
KZG polynomial commitments, and appchain-scoped commitment aggregation, Lux-DAS enables light
|
|
clients to verify data availability with tunable security guarantees ($\lambda \approx 0.415\,s$ bits
|
|
of confidence from $s$ samples) while scaling bandwidth sub-linearly across appchains.
|
|
|
|
Our security analysis proves that Lux-DAS provides $(1 - (3/4)^s)$-detection probability per
|
|
light client under a computationally bounded adversary, with network-level guarantees ensured
|
|
by coupling DAS with Beacon consensus finality. Empirical evaluation on a 200-validator
|
|
testnet demonstrates 42\,ms median verification latency for 75-sample DAS, 248\,MiB/slot
|
|
aggregate throughput across 16 appchains, and $6.3\times$ bandwidth reduction from commitment
|
|
aggregation compared to the non-aggregated baseline.
|
|
|
|
Future work includes: (i) replacing KZG with post-quantum polynomial commitments for long-term
|
|
security; (ii) integrating DAS with the Lux Teleport protocol (LP-6332) for trustless cross-appchain
|
|
message verification; and (iii) extending the adaptive sampling strategy to account for
|
|
geographic correlation among validators.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Availability}
|
|
|
|
The Lux-DAS implementation is open-source and available at
|
|
\url{https://github.com/luxfi/luxd/tree/das-prototype}.
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
|
\begin{thebibliography}{30}
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{albassam2018fraud}
|
|
M.~Al-Bassam, A.~Sonnino, and V.~Buterin.
|
|
\newblock Fraud and data availability proofs: Maximising light client security
|
|
and scaling blockchains with dishonest majorities.
|
|
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.09044}, 2018.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{albassam2019lazyledger}
|
|
M.~Al-Bassam.
|
|
\newblock LazyLedger: A distributed data availability ledger with client-side
|
|
smart contracts.
|
|
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09274}, 2019.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{kate2010commitment}
|
|
A.~Kate, G.~M.~Zaverucha, and I.~Goldberg.
|
|
\newblock Constant-size commitments to polynomials and their applications.
|
|
\newblock In \emph{ASIACRYPT 2010}, pages 177--194. Springer, 2010.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{reed1960polynomial}
|
|
I.~S.~Reed and G.~Solomon.
|
|
\newblock Polynomial codes over certain finite fields.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics},
|
|
8(2):300--304, 1960.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{eip4844}
|
|
V.~Buterin, D.~Feist, D.~Loerakker, G.~Kadianakis, M.~Garnett, M.~Taiwo~Samsudeen, and A.~Stokes.
|
|
\newblock EIP-4844: Shard blob transactions.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Ethereum Improvement Proposals}, 2022.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{dankrad2022danksharding}
|
|
D.~Feist.
|
|
\newblock New sharding design with tight proofs of data availability and
|
|
correctness.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Ethereum Research}, 2022.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{celestia2023}
|
|
Celestia Labs.
|
|
\newblock Celestia: A scalable general-purpose data availability layer for
|
|
decentralized apps and rollups.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Technical Report}, 2023.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{avail2023}
|
|
Polygon Labs.
|
|
\newblock Avail: The essential base layer for modern blockchains.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Technical Whitepaper}, 2023.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{eigenda2023}
|
|
EigenLayer.
|
|
\newblock EigenDA: Hyperscale data availability for rollups.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Technical Report}, 2023.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{ben2018fast}
|
|
E.~Ben-Sasson, I.~Bentov, Y.~Horesh, and M.~Riabzev.
|
|
\newblock Fast Reed-Solomon interactive oracle proofs of proximity.
|
|
\newblock In \emph{ICALP 2018}, pages 14:1--14:17, 2018.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{peikert2019noninteractive}
|
|
C.~Peikert and S.~Shiehian.
|
|
\newblock Noninteractive zero knowledge for NP from (plain) learning with
|
|
errors.
|
|
\newblock In \emph{CRYPTO 2019}, pages 89--119. Springer, 2019.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{bowe2019recursive}
|
|
S.~Bowe, J.~Grigg, and D.~Hopwood.
|
|
\newblock Recursive proof composition without a trusted setup.
|
|
\newblock \emph{IACR Cryptol.\ ePrint Arch.}, 2019/1021, 2019.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{ethereumceremony}
|
|
Ethereum Foundation.
|
|
\newblock The KZG ceremony: A multi-participant trusted setup for Ethereum.
|
|
\newblock \url{https://ceremony.ethereum.org/}, 2023.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{nakamoto2008bitcoin}
|
|
S.~Nakamoto.
|
|
\newblock Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
|
|
\newblock 2008.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{castro1999practical}
|
|
M.~Castro and B.~Liskov.
|
|
\newblock Practical Byzantine fault tolerance.
|
|
\newblock In \emph{OSDI}, pages 173--186, 1999.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{boneh2020single}
|
|
D.~Boneh, B.~B{\"u}nz, and B.~Fisch.
|
|
\newblock Batching techniques for accumulators with applications to IOPs and
|
|
stateless blockchains.
|
|
\newblock In \emph{CRYPTO 2019}, pages 561--586. Springer, 2019.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{buterin2014ethereum}
|
|
V.~Buterin.
|
|
\newblock A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application
|
|
platform.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Ethereum Whitepaper}, 2014.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{buchman2016tendermint}
|
|
E.~Buchman.
|
|
\newblock Tendermint: Byzantine fault tolerance in the age of blockchains.
|
|
\newblock \emph{PhD Thesis, University of Guelph}, 2016.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{rocketteam2020snowman}
|
|
Lux Industries Inc.
|
|
\newblock Beacon: A BFT consensus protocol for linear chains.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Technical Report}, 2023.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{gabizon2019plonk}
|
|
A.~Gabizon, Z.~J.~Williamson, and O.~Ciobotaru.
|
|
\newblock PLONK: Permutations over Lagrange-bases for oecumenical
|
|
noninteractive arguments of knowledge.
|
|
\newblock \emph{IACR Cryptol.\ ePrint Arch.}, 2019/953, 2019.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{wood2014ethereum}
|
|
G.~Wood.
|
|
\newblock Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Ethereum Project Yellow Paper}, 2014.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{mcelieceReed1978}
|
|
R.~J.~McEliece.
|
|
\newblock A public-key cryptosystem based on algebraic coding theory.
|
|
\newblock \emph{DSN Progress Report}, 42(44):114--116, 1978.
|
|
|
|
\bibitem{berlekamp1968algebraic}
|
|
E.~R.~Berlekamp.
|
|
\newblock \emph{Algebraic Coding Theory}.
|
|
\newblock McGraw-Hill, 1968.
|
|
|
|
\end{thebibliography}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
\appendix
|
|
|