[tromp]

> This relies on the weak assumption that the consensus algorithm will not finalize invalid data and then continue to build on it for over a year.

You don't need to rely on such a weak assumption.

You can use Incrementally Verifiable Computation to verify the entire blockchain history in constant time. See e.g. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/11/05/halo.html

[dmitriid]

So, hackers remove your money or exploit an error in your smart contract, the history is there, okay. Then the data and transaction history is dropped. Yup, the "<magic buzzwords>" tells you that history is correct. So?

[tromp]

Yes, losing access to the underlying data is a big downside.

I think the ideal blockchain should offer constant time historical verification in addition to rather than as replacement of verifying the tx history. That also makes it robust against possible bugs in the design and implementation of the rather complex IVC technology.

Even if IVC is the only way to verify the full history, then it could still be limited to older history, e.g. up to a week or month ago. That would give you some time to investigate recent hiccups.

[everfree]

Just because you don't understand a data structure doesn't make it a magic buzzword.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree#Uses

[dmitriid]

That is not an answer to my question.

[everfree]

What was your question?

[dmitriid]

You're hand waving it away in the parallel discussion.