Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • Certainly, we can verify that the L2 transactions were correctly executed, by re-execute the posted L2 transactions batch. But the L1 Contract should check the L2 transactions batch, not by re-execution (because it's the essence of rollups). I suppose proof includes some hash value of the L2 transactions batch, and L1 verifier contract can verify the posted L2 transactions batch by checking if the hash value of it corresponds to the proof's data. Commented Nov 28, 2022 at 2:23
  • What you suppose may not be currently supported, unless you’re looking for a hypothetical answer. Commented Nov 28, 2022 at 15:24
  • Do you mean, present implementations of L1 verifier contract do not check correspondence of transactions batch and proof's data? I would like to know the true concept of rollups method, but it might be under investigation. Commented Nov 28, 2022 at 21:20