Quote from: Pmalek on Today at 01:47:35 PM

I am not sure how the Bitcoin community and pro full-node proponents will accept the idea of not being the ones that perform the full verification process themselves. If the idea has always been to verify and not trust, I don't see that changing. I guess it's also going to depend on how ZeroSync exactly verifies those transactions. An increase in centralization will surely not be something hardcore-bitcoiners will approve of.

Yea UNFORTUNATELY the implementations of these "Zero Knowledge" proofs on EVM chains mainly seems to completely throw away the purpose of using ZK systems in the first place which is privacy and they instead institute some sort of consortium of trusted keys to validate AND verify these proofs and use them for scaling( even though they are much larger than the underlying data inherently)? Seems dumb to me.

ZK proofs for privacy purposes on the other hand is a wonderful application, ZKSTARK implementation seems very promising in a quantum resistance sense and also is acceptably scalable.

But using these things to verify something that is not going to be private ever? That makes no sense, why even use zero knowledge for that application.

There needs to be a legitimate use case for the proofs and one that is reasonably weighted for the Bitcoin network so that it can scale properly.

I am positive a "Full Knowledge" system would be more suitable for public blockchain verification, there is no sense in wrapping stuff in ZK for the hell of it.

These things are not going to be any better than SPV at network security, might they offer a trusted solution that is scalable? Hopefully. But other than that no one will replace a full node with zero knowledge unless they dont care about what code they are running and in that case why even run a node?