What is this about?

The discussion revolves around the BoLD paper's staking protocol, focusing on the permissionlessness of validation and the required number of stakes for defenders in a multi-level setting. The conversation was initiated by GCdePaula¹ who presented a scenario where attackers might force defenders to place a new stake for each sub-challenge by creating multiple top-level edges. DZack23² and Edfelten⁴ clarified that only one stake from an honest party is necessary per challenge level and that stakes for sub-challenges can be smaller, referred to as "mini-stakes". The discussion also touched upon the delays caused by invalid sub-challenges and the overall complexity of the protocol.

How is the community reacting?

The community is actively engaged, with GCdePaula^1,3,5 asking insightful questions and DZack23² and Edfelten⁴ providing detailed answers. The community shows a strong interest in understanding the staking mechanism's intricacies, particularly how "mini-stakes" scale with nested challenges. The level of interaction indicates a collective effort to comprehend the complexities of the BoLD paper's staking protocol.

Why this is positive?

• The community's high engagement and understanding are encouraging.
• GCdePaula's^1,3,5 probing questions are fostering a deeper understanding of the staking protocol.
• DZack23² and Edfelten⁴ are contributing valuable explanations that help the community grasp the protocol's nuances.

Why this is negative?

• The protocol's complexity may pose comprehension challenges for some community members.
• There are concerns about attackers potentially exploiting the protocol by forcing defenders to submit multiple stakes in a multi-level context, which could affect the security of the rollup.

We have not been able to determine whether this will be positive or negative:

• The content of the post by Sam.ng⁶ is unavailable due to deletion by the author, leaving no information to assess its impact on the discussion.