My understanding is that Citrea is using a ZKP proof to recover from an invalid protocol state. Whatever data gets into the blockchain, the onus is on the Citrea-compatible nodes to do the actual validation -- Bitcoin itself has no part in this other than distributing the data. Adding a new relay service for promulgating data that is provably committed to in an OP_RETURN would not be a significant additional burden to the L2 protocol if this additional relay service is adopted by a sufficient proportion of nodes, and L2 protocol participants would have an incentive to run this new relay service for their own benefit, so they would likely already have the data cached by the time the transaction is confirmed. I don't have any hard numbers on this, but my conjecture is that L2 protocols would run enough relays themselves for the system to be viable, and the clear segregation between arbitrary data ephemerally cached and monetary data permanently stored will be enough incentive for many node operators to also adopt it.<br /><br /><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto" class="gmail_attr">On Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 12:05:51 PM UTC-4 Russell O&#39;Connor wrote:<br/></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, May 24, 2025 at 5:33 PM Jonathan Voss &lt;<a href data-email-masked rel="nofollow">k98...@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">However, the recent discussion premised upon Citrea&#39;s Clementine Bridge evidences primarily that the relaying capabilities of the Bitcoin network itself are sufficiently useful for L2 designers that there is an incentive to bypass standardness restrictions for the sake of reliably promulgating data -- at least in the case of Citrea, they say they need to quickly and widely disseminate 140+ bytes of arbitrary ZKP data to recover from an invalid protocol state, and the utility of that ZKP data very quickly decreases after it has been confirmed and processed.</blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">Does your proposal actually solve this problem?  Posting the 140 bytes of data to the blockchain works as a public bulletin board because the actual data within the block is what is ultimately guaranteed to be disseminated to all participants.  With your proposal, a transaction with an OP_RETURN containing a hash of data could end up being mined without the relevant transaction ever even being relayed through the Bitcoin network.</div><br></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a484ae6a-33d6-4704-8356-c0ed1e5ae376n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a484ae6a-33d6-4704-8356-c0ed1e5ae376n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />