Moving ETH between shards: the problem statement

[villanuevawill]

@dankrad

All of these will have to be decided to have a functional Eth2 ecosystem. I think it is unlikely that a full node would not also be able to understand a VHEE, and based on that, it could easily make decisions on whether it is being paid valid ETH. So no enshrinement into the consensus layer would really be necessary, a new and better VHEE could even be built without a fork being necessary.

This complexity will have to be introduced regardless, and it seems natural to enshrine particular parts of it - I don’t mind expanding on this later but requires a longer writeup/rationale (although we don’t necessarily need to).

@vbuterin

Problem: this creates an enshrined in-protocol state, and creates risks that this form of state because of its greater level of enshrinement will be abused for other application purposes.

Can you describe some of these abuses in particular?

@vbuterin

removing the need for nontrivial amounts of state to store which receipts have been claimed and which have not; we just have a “next unclaimed receipt ID” ticker.

I still don’t think you need a non-trivial amount of state - Implementing cross-shard transactions - #7 by villanuevawill - I think this can be compressed to a fairly small value as mentioned in this response.