Author: Dr Maxim Orlovsky 2023-06-14 20:14:26
Published on: 2023-06-14T20:14:26+00:00
In response to comments from Peter, Maxim Orlovsky agrees that the section describing the timestamping service should be extended and clarifies that he uses the term "timestamping" to specify that some set of facts was known prior to some moment time in the past. The stronger guarantees are absent on the level of the header-producing miners. He also explains that the term "timechain" is used only as a historical reference to the way Satoshi Nakamoto named it in the Bitcoin whitepaper. Maxim Orlovsky disagrees with Peter's claim that the system does not scale and explains that the consensus layer includes only headers of the fixed size which doesn't need sharding. All other data are client-side and shared by the network users such that each user tracks and keeps only the data related to his part of the state history. The miners producing headers and PMTs act independently. Regarding the data availability problem, Maxim Orlovsky agrees that this is the main issue but sees several ways of solving it. The most promising way for him is to use a scenario where anyone may witness that a miner hasn’t released some or all of the data from a previous PMT, and the miner can appeal and demonstrate that data in the following headers(s) by including them in the next header(s). He suggests enhancing this with fees cryptoeconomics where the miner should lose fees if not providing the data.Maxim Orlovsky confirms that he is proposing a proof-of-publication-based single-use-seal. He acknowledges that he did not discuss the smart contract protocol, operating with client-side-validated data and P2P network structure in detail in the paper. He agrees with Peter that exact details of the P2P network do not matter at this point.To conclude, Maxim Orlovsky agrees to extend explanations in the paper in the places where the exact mechanism of how the problems mentioned by Peter are addressed.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T18:40:51.035625+00:00