5>0[9J?1QD_@4Y_Z=H+F;';%=K2{I>-{;@*EI5(|{:EB'JN
SYSTEM PROCESSING...
5>0[9J?1QD_@4Y_Z=H+F;';%=K2{I>-{;@*EI5(|{:EB'JN
SYSTEM PROCESSING...
Posted: 2025-05-06 10:34:29 UTC
This article contains some claims that are falsified. While not everything in the article is false, please proceed with extreme caution and verify any critical information independently.
This article contains some claims that are falsified. While not everything in the article is false, please proceed with extreme caution and verify any critical information independently.
Status
Last Updated
2025-05-06 10:34:47 UTC
Verified By
Rollup News
Vitalik Buterin discusses the importance of the underlying proof system quality in security, not just the stage of development. He presents a mathematical model to determine when to move to stage 2, considering the probability of security council members breaking and the quality of the proof system. He suggests that @l2beat should display proof system audits and maturity metrics alongside the stage.
Quality of the proof system is crucial for security.
Optimal stage depends on the proof system quality.
Security council member failure probabilities influence protocol security.
Imperfect assumptions in the mathematical model.
Common mode failures among security council members.
Determining accurate proof system maturity metrics.