BoLD: question about number of defender’s stake

Reading time saved: 4 minutes

4 replies, 690 views, 16 likes


The BoLD paper's staking protocol is being actively discussed, with a focus on the permissionless validation and the staking requirements for defenders in multi-level challenges, where only one stake per level is needed and sub-challenges can have smaller "mini-stakes." The community is engaged and seeking to understand the protocol's complexities, though concerns about its potential for exploitation and the complexity itself are noted, with the deletion of a post by Sam.ng6 leaving some aspects of the discussion unclear.

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 GCdePaula1,3,5 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's1,3,5 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.

Posted 4 months ago

Last reply 4 months ago

Summary updated 9 days ago

Last updated 08/12 04:40