Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Edited for clarity: interactive proving #1255

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Edited for clarity: interactive proving #1255

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3d2fae1
different wording for clarity and succinctness
mcmoodoo May 11, 2024
d6651b7
replaced the conjunction
mcmoodoo May 11, 2024
17c33f9
Merge branch 'master' into second_change
symbolpunk May 13, 2024
4af83d6
Merge branch 'master' into second_change
mcmoodoo May 17, 2024
9312856
Merge branch 'master' into second_change
mcmoodoo Jun 13, 2024
2877dc3
Merge branch 'master' into second_change
mcmoodoo Jun 21, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/inside-arbitrum-nitro.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -154,9 +154,9 @@ Because a party who tries to cheat will lose a deposit, attempts to cheat should

## Resolving disputes using interactive fraud proofs

Among optimistic rollups, the most important design decision is how to resolve disputes. Suppose Alice claims that the chain will produce a certain result, and Bob disagrees. How will the protocol decide which version to accept?
Among optimistic rollups, the most important design decision is how to resolve disputes. Suppose Alice claims that the chain will produce a certain result, but Bob disagrees. How will the protocol decide which version to accept?

There are basically two choices: interactive proving, or re-executing transactions. Arbitrum uses interactive proving, which we believe is more efficient and more flexible. Much of the design of Arbitrum follows from this fact.
There are two choices: interactive proving and re-executing transactions. Arbitrum uses the former. It offers more efficiency and flexibility. Much of the design of Arbitrum follows from this fact.

### Interactive proving

Expand Down