Understand Blockchain implementation and arrangement of transactions

Links table

Abstract and 1. Introduction

2. Main concepts

   2.1 Record attached only and 2.2 cases of the virtual device

   2.3 Transactions as curry functions

   2.4 The natural names of the state

   2.5 Earth’s truth

   2.6 Effective state representations

   2.7 checkpoints

   2.8 Implementation parameters: Calldata

   2.9 arrangement implementation

   2.10 Decision on the right situation

3. Ideal layer design 2

   3.1 VM job queue and arrangement of final transactions

   3.2 Provides data and collecting garbage

   3.3 state final

   3.4 checkpoints

4. Conclusion and references

A. Security teachers to reveal the contradiction

2 main concepts

In this section, we offer ideas, blogging and terms used to describe and determine the space of smart contract systems design, using some known systems as reference points. Applying these ideas will help us create an easier and easier sports / mental model in what all Blockchain systems do, and to discuss / analysis of the bites in current and future designs. These concepts apply to standard Blockchains as well as scaling solutions like Rollups.

2.1 Record only

The urgency records are only used in Bitcoin, Ethereum V1 work designs (POW), while those used in Ethereum V2, Cosmos, Polkadot, Oasis, etc. are creative designs (POS).

At the level of abstraction required here, the only thing we care about is that the process of attaching POW record is a possibility, and the input is not considered successful until about 6 additional entries (the distance to the end of the chain is a safety teacher here). The idea of ​​the need for additional inputs is usually called “final probability” POW.

POS records use the committee elections and digital signatures instead of solving encryption puzzles, and once the consensus protocol is completed and a new record is entered, it is permanently considered. Although it takes time until the consensus protocol is run, it is not necessary to have any additional inputs, and this is often referred to as “the immediate end”.

We will refer to the general idea in the name of “registry finals”, whether it is a possibility (with an appropriate safety teacher) or a moment. The registry finals are the mechanism in which other concepts are built for Haya: the final record says only that some entry was successfully attached to the record, but he does not say anything about what this entry means.

2.2 The apparent device case

Since the “state” can be encrypted and represented in many ways, we need to start mathematical necessities to describe what we mean as “the situation” in an absolute way of any specific representation. Through “case”, we mean a function from a group of keys, its field, to a valuable group, its scope, that is, the case: the value → value. In Bitcoin, the key will be general keys, and the value will be numbers that represent the amount of bitcoin codes under the control of the corresponding special keys. In systems that resemble ETHEREUM, KEY will be a union for several broken groups, for example, division of public key -related calculations (EOAS), contract addresses, contract address, 256 -bits address, balance of addresses, ongoing store sites, etc.[1]

2.3 Transactions as curry functions

Blockchain -based systems suggest the transactions that are registered by attaching them to Blockchain. We usually think about transactions as a change country. In a mathematical description, they are jobs transformation The state, that is, the state → the state. Smart contract entry points take the arguments – at ethereum and Calldata – and are not commensurate with this type of signature of this type; However, by curbing all the media brought by the user including mandate information (MSG.Sender, etc.), all transactions can be designed in this way.[2]

This is a useful chapter because most virtual devices implement the implications of standard transactions, and thwarting the explicit treatment that belongs to the condition of the contract (failure failure) is merely a restoration of their input condition, although the gas fee for the account that is made so that the miscarriage should still be paid.

2.4 The natural names of the state

Because users think about their transactions as being implemented in a strict serial matter and provide transactions based on their model of the current system status (for example, their EOA balance), which is a natural way to indicate any accessible condition is the sequence of transactions that give this condition.

2.4.1 names and formation of transformations

Note that for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and definition, the natural name is exactly what is recorded on Blockchain. Other smart contract systems may only Implicitly Record the implementation order, for example, as part of the ZKSNARK proves the correct implementation.

2.4.2 The names are not unique

Note that the names are not unique. Many countries have multiple names. If the two transactions F and G are transported in a specific case, that is, the resulting condition is (F; G) (s) = (g; f) (s), then (at least) are two names of the resulting state. Of course, if both F and G are suggested, the system will eventually decide some requests. This is similar to how 0+ 1+ 2 and 0 + 2 + 1 both directions to nominal value 3.

Also note that some countries have no names in this designation. For example, the state of EOA control cannot be reached in the distinctive symbols more than the total supply of the distinctive symbol, where (in the absence of a catastrophic error) there are no sequences of transactions from the formation of Genesis that may lead to such a situation. This is good, because these incomplete situations do not matter.

---

[1] This is just one way to model Ethereum; Other models, for example, as a set of appointments for each key type, will be more accurate.