From 4edd104cbea4714b0fc0e5d28e4c0056652079f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pete Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 13:29:53 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Update arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/06-optimistic-rollup.mdx MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Co-authored-by: Gaël Blanchemain --- arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/06-optimistic-rollup.mdx | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/06-optimistic-rollup.mdx b/arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/06-optimistic-rollup.mdx index 5403c434a..f95710bd3 100644 --- a/arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/06-optimistic-rollup.mdx +++ b/arbitrum-docs/how-arbitrum-works/06-optimistic-rollup.mdx @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ We believe strongly that interactive proving is the superior approach, for the f **More efficient in the pessimistic case**: In case of a dispute, interactive proving requires the L1 referee contract only to check that Alice and Bob's actions "have the right shape". For example, that Alice has divided her `N`-step claim into two claims half as large. (The referee doesn't need to evaluate the correctness of Alice's claims--Bob does that off-chain.) Only one instruction needs to be re-executed. By contrast, re-execution requires the L1 referee to emulate the execution of an entire transaction. -**Higher per-tx gas limit:** Interactive proving can escape from Ethereum's tight per-transaction gas limit. The gas limit isn't infinite, for obvious reasons, but it can be larger than on Ethereum. As far as Ethereum is concerned, the only downside of a gas-heavy Arbitrum transaction is that it may require an interactive fraud proof with slightly more steps (and only if a fraud proof is actually needed; i.e., in the event of a dispute). By contrast, rerexecution must impose a _lower_ gas limit than Ethereum, because it must be possible to emulate execution of the transaction (which is more expensive than executing it directly) within a single Ethereum transaction. +**Higher per-tx gas limit:** Interactive proving can escape Ethereum's tight per-transaction gas limit. The gas limit isn't infinite, for obvious reasons, but it can be larger than on Ethereum. As far as Ethereum is concerned, the only downside of a gas-heavy Arbitrum transaction is that it may require an interactive fraud proof with slightly more steps (and only if a fraud proof is actually needed; i.e., in the event of a dispute). By contrast, re-execution must impose a _lower_ gas limit than Ethereum, because it must be possible to emulate the execution of the transaction (which is more expensive than executing it directly) within a single Ethereum transaction. **More implementation flexibility:** Interactive proving allows more flexibility in implementation. All that is necessary is the ability to verify a one-step proof on Ethereum. By contrast, rerexecution approaches are tethered to limitations of the EVM.