►
From YouTube: The Baseline Show: Office Hours
Description
We had an issue arise with our guest, Hyper Oracle will join us for part 2 in the future.
Baseline Show Office Hours!
Baseline Protocol is an emerging standard for state synchronization across different systems of record. This standard can be applied to traditional corporate systems of record and utilize any kind of database or state machine, including different blockchains or distributed ledger technologies (DLTs).
Join us every Wednesday at noon EST on our live show, 'The Baseline Show'. Each week, we host industry leaders who share their insights and expert opinions on data governance, security, digital supply chain, multi-party workflows and collaboration.
Tune in via YouTube or LinkedIn Live.
#BaselineProtocol #DataManagement #Blockchain #DataSharing #MultiPartyWorkflows #DataGovernance #InformationSecurity #BusinessAutomation #BusinessSynchronization #DataIntegrity #IndustryTrends #LiveShow #LiveStream #LiveDiscussion #ExpertOpinion #YouTube #LinkedInLive #B2BBlockchain #DigitalSupplyChain #Innovation #SupplyChain
C
D
A
A
I've
waited
no
I,
think
I
think
I.
Think
that
that's
like
that's
like
that's
like
you
know,
being
in
the
mob
and
then
and
then
you
know
it's
like
you
know,
starting
off
with,
like
you
know,
running
drugs
and
then
and
then
migrating
to
to
to
Pizza
I
think
that
that
that
doesn't
work,
you're
still
gonna
get.
D
A
E
E
A
So
that
that
the
the
big
problem
so
there's
actually
a
general
problem
with,
with,
with
with
coins
that
have
that
have
a
that
have
a
cap.
Supply
is
be
it's
the
it's
the
because
the
early
adopters
gain
all
the
value
and
the
later
adopters
are,
are
or
have
a
problem,
always
right.
So
so
it's
it's
a
it's
it's
a
that
is
actually
a
long-term
adoption
problem.
A
So
because,
because
you
know
it
works
right,
it's
like
it's.
Like
you
know,
it's
the
you
know
the
the
you
know
it's
like
the
the
Koza
Nostra
started
over
over
and
over
and
over
in
Italy,
but
but
profitably
you
know
replicated
itself
in
the
in
the
in
the
US
right.
It's
like
hey
business
model
work!
That's
let's
do
it
right.
A
So,
but
from
a
from
Pure
tokenomics
point
of
view,
if,
if
if
your
primary
means
of
exchange
is
not
sort
of
like
inflationary
or
actually
or
is,
is
it
loses
loses
loses
value,
then
you're?
Unless
you
stay
engaged
there's
no.
There
is
no
way
that
that
you're
not
automatically
incentivizing
bad
behavior,
either
you're
you're
you're
doing
centralization
of
of
value
or
your
your
right.
So
you
need
to
have
some
form
of
of
inflation
built
into
your
coin.
E
A
E
A
A
It's
all
that
it's
all
the
good
stuff,
but
it
just
it
just
you
know,
replicates
the
real
world
in
in
the
crypto
space
right,
except
you
know,
with
with
with
left
with
less
guard
rails
right,
there's
a
there's
now
the
question
is:
can
you
build
in
the
guard
rail
in
in
a
in
a
permissionless
system,
without
without
sacrificing
sort
of
like
the
the
truthless
nature
of
the
of
the
of
the
of
the
system?
Right.
A
E
F
A
Oh
you,
you
would
want
to
because
because,
because
you
have
you
you,
you
know
it's
like,
because
because
underlying
reason
is
mad
cop's
law
right,
so
mad
cut
right.
Mad
cow's
law
will
say
it's
like
if
you're,
if
you're,
if
your
ecosystem
grows,
that
you
know
the
number
of
nodes
of
value
grows,
based
on
the
on
the
on
on
the
value
each
participant
holds
and
and
at
the
square
right
so
you're
you're,
you're,
you're,
you're
you're,
you
know
you're
you're
gaining.
A
You
know
that
value
as
you're
as
you're,
adding
more
and
more
participants
into
the
into
the
ecosystem.
But
you
want
to
be
able
to
do
that,
while
still
ensuring
that
you're
compliant
right
with
that
you're
still
doing
things
by
the
book
right.
But
in
a
way
that
you
know
you
can
you
can
identify
whether
someone
doesn't
does
or
does
not
and
at
the
same
time
while
preserving
privacy.
So
that's
doable
and
that's
what
what?
Why
why
you
can
do
like
compliance
policy
enforcement
on
chain
with
zero
knowledge,
proofs.
A
F
Or
hey
I
can
buy
a
whole
bunch
of
these
car
warranties
and
you
know
insurers.
Do
this
all
the
time
with
loss,
portfolio
transfers
where
they
basically
sell
a
bunch
of
losses
to
someone
else,
and
you
can
create
a
Marketplace
to
where
it's
like
hey.
You
know,
I've
got
this
car
warranty,
that's
on
a
19,
you
know
97,
Toyota
and
I
want
to
swap
it
for
a
car
warranty.
That's
on
a
you
know:
2018
Honda.
F
A
Well,
if
you,
if
you
have
enough
liquidity
in
that
in
that
in
that,
in
that
Marketplace,
you
can
do
you
can
do
a
swap.
That's
what
what?
What
like
unit
swaps
for
right,
if
you,
if
you,
if
you
have
enough
of
those
of
those
of
those
warranties
right
that
you
that
you
package
right
so
so
it's
like
right,
it's
an
it's!
An
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
it's,
not
an
acid-based
security!
A
It's
a
liability
based
yeah
security,
so
you're
you're,
you're,
you're,
tokenizing
and
and
swapping
risk
right,
which
is
an
interesting
thing
right,
because
you're
gonna
swap
V3.
You
can
provide
liquidity
in
certain
price
ranges
for
a
pair.
So
you
indicate
where
you
know
what
your
risk
tolerance
is.
F
A
Well,
I
mean
if
you,
if
you
actually,
if
you
actually
do
that
and
issue
these
type
of
things
you
need
to
be,
you
know
you
need
to
have
the
proper
fin
run
licensing.
You
need
to
be
a
broker
dealer
and
everything.
So
it's
it's
like
that.
That's
where
again
compliance
comes
in,
but
you
can
build
all
of
that
into,
for
example,
a
coin
right.
So
you
can
you,
can
you
can
you
can
you?
A
A
Proof
right
and
you
can
you
can
you
can
you
can
have
that
validated
right
on
chain
and
therefore
you
can
then
say:
if
you
tie
that
that
that
compli,
that
zero
knowledge
compliance
certificate
or
the
zero
knowledge
proof
representation
of
that
compliance
certificate
and
and
attach
that
to
the
to
the
asset,
then
anybody
can
verify
that
the
issuer
right
is
is.
It
is
actually
a
registered
broker.
Dealer
yeah.
F
A
A
You
just
need
to
be
able
to
verify
that
the
that
the
that
the
certificate
issuer
is
known
right
so
that
it
it
was
issued
by
the
SDC
right,
so
that
and
then
Things
become
really
really
interesting,
because
then
things
open
up
right
from
a
from
a
from
a
a
from
a
from
a
from
a
free
exchange.
Point
of
view
right
so
then
I
can
I.
A
Can
permissionlessly
trade
like
liability
swaps,
right
on
on
on
on
on
cars
right
on
a
portfolio
of
of
like
car,
warranties,
right
yeah
in
a
way
that's
compliant
right,
so
data
becomes
really
again
under
zero
knowledge,
so
multi-party
coordination
unreserved
under
zero
knowledge.
So
you
know
it's
like
it's
like.
There
are
legitimate
ways
how
you,
for
example,
could
integrate
uniswap
into
into
or
integrate?
You
know,
Baseline
tokenized
assets
into
into
into
uniswap.
F
Well,
I
mean,
and
looking
at
this
step
to
where
you
know,
I
I
I
start
you
know
taking
looking
at
that.
You
know
in
a
different
light
to
say
you
know
how
much
of
the
utility
that's
you
know,
being
put
out
in
a
lot
of
these
use
cases
out
there
involving
nfts.
Couldn't
that
be
also
done
with
zero
knowledge
proofs,
because
you
can
have
that
Singularity
and
that
permanence,
representing
a
an
an
asset
and
proofs,
are
a
lot
easier
to
create
and
to
move
and
to
share
than
nfts.
F
You
know
just
because
I've
seen
a
lot
of
the
you
know,
use
cases
that
would
come
out
in
the
past
year
and
stuff
to
where
they
want
to
tokenize.
You
know
all
these
different
things,
whether
it's
event
tickets.
You
know
or
something
like
that,
and
you
know
all
of
a
sudden.
The
the
project
kind
of
you
know
encounters
some
severe
headwinds
when
they
realize
the
transaction
costs
of
minting
and
moving
these
nfts
becomes.
You
know
prohibitive,
and
it's
like
okay.
Well,
why
not
use
your
knowledge
proofs
I
mean?
F
Is
that
I
mean
I'm,
not
saying
you're
using
them?
You
know
as
a
absolute
replacement
for
the
other,
but
I
think
in
a
lot
more
environments
that
do
not
require
that
you
know
deep
level
of
compliance.
Reporting
could
be
able
to
use
this.
You
know
and
still
have
that
element
of
trust
and
still
have
that.
You
know
representation
of
you
know
a
a
digital
asset
without
having
to
actually
mint
a
full-blown
token.
F
A
If,
if,
if
you
have,
if
you
have,
if
you
have
them,
if
you're
the
the
problem,
the
problem
is
that
the
proof
is
does
not
come
with
a
with
a
with
a
verifiable
timestamp
right,
so
it's
like
it's
like
and
and
and
so
I
can
I
can
generate,
approve
anytime.
I
want
right
right
right,
so
it's
like
it's
like
it's
like
I
can
prove
that
that
that
this
is
true,
but
where
is
the
timestamp
on
it?
That
is
clarifiable
right,
so
it
comes
always
back
to
the
point.
A
E
F
A
F
A
A
E
A
F
A
You're
good,
that's
why
the
Baseline
protocol
thing
you
need
a
dcfm
right.
The
contents
is
controlled
State
machine,
because
that's
the
only
way
how
you
can,
how
you
can,
how
you
can
generate
these.
The
the
these
type
of
of
generalized
timestamps
right
I
mean
that's
a
real
problem
in
in
in
all
in
all
distributed
systems.
So
it's
like
it's
like
and-
and
you
know
it's
like-
oh
I
received
it
at
that
point
in
time
right.
The
shipment.
Did
you
right?
So
it's
it's!
It's
are
you
committing
to
that
at
that
point
in
time?
A
If
it's,
if
it's
you
know
and
well,
if
it
turns
out
it's
not,
then
you're
you're
you're
right,
so
it
that's
the
whole.
That's
the
whole
point.
That's
why
Baseline
is
using
is,
is
requiring
this
strict
time
ordering
of
your
of
your
committed
statements.
That's
that's
super!
That's
super
super
important.
F
Right
I
mean
and
again
where
you
start
having
the
time.
Stamping
and
stuff
I
mean
I'm,
starting
to
think
of,
like
the
consensus
algorithm
that
it's
called
proof
of
History,
which
uses
the
time
stamp.
Really,
as
the
you
know,
as
as
the
shared
consensus,
I
want
to
say,
Solana
uses
the
proof
of
history
and
their
consensus.
A
Yeah,
there's
like
yes,
it's
it's
yeah
I,
looked
at
that
at
one
point:
yeah!
It's
it's
it's
it's
it's!
It's!
It's
yeah!
It's
a
it's!
It's
again,
you
need
Firefall
delay
functions
in
order
to
do
that
fully
and-
and
probably
so,
it's
it's
it
it
becomes.
It
becomes
anything
that
is.
That
is
not
sort
of
like
anything
where
you,
where
it's
not
clear,
that
you've
put
in
a
lot
of
work
or
that
you're
putting
actual
value
at
fake.
You
know
ahead
of
time
right,
you're
it
it
just.
A
Doesn't
it
just
doesn't
work
right,
you
know,
Sawtooth
used
use
proof
of
a
laptop
and
they
use
they
use
because
they
they
said.
Okay,
so
I
can
prove
in
my
trusted
execution
environment
that
the
CPU
ran
for
this
many
billions
I
called
before
I
I
committed
it
right
so
that
that
it's
it's
proof.
History
is
like
proof
of
elapsed
time.
So,
but
it's
it's
it
it
it
really.
It
doesn't
matter
what
your
consensus
algorithm
is
right
as
long
as
long
as
you
don't
have.
A
F
Yeah
that
that,
if
doesn't
doesn't
ever
work,
I
mean
it's
one
of
those
where
you're
you're
starting
to
see
them.
You
know
start
to
really
kind
of
question
the
proof
of
work,
proof
of
stake,
type,
algorithms,
because
they're
so
slow,
and
that's
why
they're
trying
to
you
know
start
looking
at
someone
like
approved
history,
because
it's
a
lot
faster
I
mean
Salon
is
a
lot
faster
than
ethereum
last
I
checked
I,
don't
know
how
much
faster
I
just
know.
It's
faster
yeah.
A
A
So
that's
why
you
know
vitalik
suggested
you
should
have
the
UK
evm
verifying
the
blocks
and
then
only
adding
the
adding
the
the
proofs,
the
the
ZK
snark
proof
of
correct
execution
as
the
as
to
the
to
the
block
is
just
the
block
header
and
the
hashes
and
the
proof
so
you're
you're
you're
reducing
the
data
you
need
to
schlep
around
in
the
chain.
Significantly
so
and
then
you
can,
you
know
it's
like
and
then
you
can
and
and
because
of
that
now
you
can
put
more
transactions
into
a
block.
A
A
F
Just
that's
just
my
my
impression
and
stuff
over
there.
You
know
my
big
thing
is
everyone.
It
just
seems
as
though
right
now,
with
a
lot
of
the
public
architectures,
are
really
trying
to
attack
that
lag
time
between
block,
commit
and
block
finality,
because
yeah
ethereum
still
again
around
eight
to
nine
minutes.
F
F
Well,
yeah,
but
you're
trying
to
get
scalability
and
where
I
think
a
lot
of
the
you
know.
A
lot
of
the
work
is
kind
of
has
a
focus
on
there's
a
lot
of
these.
You
know
kind
of
emerging
metaverse
applications
because
the
choice
of
layer
one
is
going
to
be
especially
important,
because
if
you
have
a
large
amount
of
users
within
this
environment
and,
however
they're
interacting
and
just
moving
within
it,
you
know.
D
A
A
There
are
different
ways
how
you
can
achieve
throughput
and
and
scalability,
and
it's
a
combination
of
things
not
just
one
thing
and
that's
the
same
thing
with
like
with,
like
you
know
like
like,
if
you
think
about
Baseline,
right
Baseline,
if
you
have
multiple
Baseline
implementations,
you
need
to
be
able
to
interoperate
right.
It's
it's
it's!
A
You
know,
because
I
I
can
have
a
Baseline
implementation,
that's
using
ethereum
or
one
that
uses
Alana
and
now
I
need
to
do
in
I
need
to
do
interop,
because
you
know
they're,
they're,
they're,
they're,
they're,
they're,
legitimate
business
reasons.
Why
I
need
to
do
things?
That's
why
we're
doing
the
interoperability
demonstration
right
and
what
we're?
What
we're
doing
there
Keith
do
you
want
to?
You
want
to
tell
a
little
bit
what
the
about
the
working
group
there
where,
where
we're
at.
D
D
F
D
A
So,
but
for
for
for
finalization,
you
need
to
have
clarification
of
that
that
that
the
proof
is
actually
correct
right.
So
it's
like
there,
there
is
no
again,
you
can't
have
your
cake
and
eat
it.
There.
There's
there's!
You
know
it's
like
it's!
It's
you
there
are.
There
are
trade-offs.
Yes,
you
can
you
can
you
can
do
a
lot
with
zero
knowledge
proofs,
so
the
slots
are
being
finalized
and
you're
you
can
you
can
but
there's
there.
There
is
no!
A
A
D
A
D
D
Yeah
and
yeah
anybody's
welcome
usually
has
somewhere,
maybe
like
five
to
seven
people.
We
had
a
a
a
previous
guest
on
the
show
versus
zero
show
for
the
last
interrupt
meeting.
We've
gotten
to
the
point,
I
think
we're
about
six
or
seven
sessions
in
maybe
five
to
six
sessions
in
where
we've
kind
of
established
a
general
use
case
for
interop,
between
Bri,
three
and
and
Bri
one
from
Pierre
VD
Oasis.
A
Yeah,
no,
it's
like
it's
a
it's
a
very
common
use
case
right.
So
it's
like
it's
like
it's
like
when,
when,
when
you
give
someone
when
you
give
when
you're
when
you're
a
customer
of
a
company
right
that
writes
you
that
writes
you
invoices
right,
then
you
know
or
or
you
know,
their
their
their
Partners
one
company
another
company
and
and
you
need
to
pay
them,
you
need
to
validate
the
banking
information
right.
The
banking
information
has
to
be
validated,
but.
D
A
This
well,
what's
your
what's
your:
what's
your
what
you're
saying
what
what
you're
doing?
Is
that
the
that
the
that
the
customer
who
has
to
come
with
a
Bank
letter
right
with
it
with
a
wet
signature
that
says
this
banking
data
is
correct
right
the
bank
will
never
go
and
and
and
and
and
if
you,
if,
if,
if,
if
you
Acme
Corporation-
want
to
validate
the
banking
data
of
your
of
your
of
your
customer,
you
need
to
you
need
to
you.
A
Can't
just
go
to
the
bank
and
say:
hey:
is
this
banking
data
correct
the
bank
will
say
I
I
can't
tell
you
you're,
not
the
you're,
not
the
account
owner.
What
are
you
talking
about
right?
So
you
know
tell
the
other
guy
to
come
to
us
and
we're
going
to
validate
that
that
banking
data
is
correct
right.
So
it's
it's,
it's
a
lot
more
onus
on,
so
so
so
the
the
customer
needs
to
go
to
the
bank,
get
a
bank
letter
like
a
real
letter
right
that
says
yup.
This
is
okay
right
and
between
Banks.
A
F
A
What
you,
what
you
need
to
do
is
you,
in
order
to
do
that,
you
need
to
show
them
your
bank
statement
right,
a
reason.
A
recent
recent
bank
statement
right
that
you
have
that
that
you
have
that
that
balance,
that's
how
you
get
it!
The
bank
will
not
will
not
give
out
your
information
they're
not
allowed
to.
E
F
A
D
A
That's
the
that's
the
that's
the
that's
the
clever!
That's
the
clever
clever!
It's
pretty
cool,
clever
thing!
Well
right!
So
we're
basically
cutting
out
we're
basically
cutting
out
a
work
step
between
between
so
so
we're,
making
it
easier
for
the
customer
and
easier
for
the
bank
right,
so
that's
hassle
for
the
customer.
Let's
work
for
the
bank
because
they
don't
need
to
issue
that
letter
right.
A
A
This
doesn't
verify,
and
you
can
do
this
like
virtually
in
in
real
time,
because
what
we're
doing
is
we're
just
sending
we're
just
sending
they're,
not
proofs
back
in
back
and
forth,
because
we're
we're
we're
basically
putting
the
banking
data
into
a
cryptographic
data
structure
that
can
be
verified
with
their
knowledge
proofs
and
that's
the
that's
the
cool
thing
then
we're
sending
those
back
and
forth
right.
That's
the
that's
the
and
we're
doing
it
with
two
different
bris
right.
So,
and
so
it's
it's
it's
we
have.
A
We
have
a
state
right
for
Acme
Corporation,
a
work
group
with
a
customer
and
Acme
Corporation
and
the
you
know
the
work
group
from
the
from
the
from
the
bank
from
the
Bri
that
the
bank
uses
right,
because
the
bank
has
a
lot
of
customers
coming
in
with
the
same
thing.
So
they
have
they
have
they
have.
They
have
a
BRI
with
different
work
groups,
where
you
know
the
bank
verified
and
their
auditor
verified
that
what
the
bank
verified
is
correct
right.
A
A
The
parties
can
rely
on
the
same
proof
because
they
can
use
their
data.
They
can
use
their
data
to
verify
the
proof
right
so
they're
getting
the
proof,
but
there's
one
element
missing
and
that
element
that's
methane
in
the
proof
right.
The
other
party
needs
to
generate,
and
if
they
generate
that
little
piece
of
data
correctly,
then
the
proof
verifies.
If
it
doesn't,
then
the
proof
doesn't
verify
and
therefore
you
know
that
either
yup
the
data
is
correct.
A
E
A
F
A
Correct,
so
it's
it's,
it's
a
so
this
is.
This
is
really
sort
of
like
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
real.
You
know
it's
a
pattern
right
that
you
can
utilize
for
anything.
If
you
agree
on
this
is
the
this
is
the
data.
This
is
the
data
structure
right
and
with
the
data
with
the
same,
you
know
with
each
field,
and
they
mean
these
things,
and
you
have
that
you
agree
on
a
schema.
Then
you
can
validate
anything
yeah.
F
F
Trade
lens
is
one
that
a
lot
of
people
look
at,
and
you
know
I
I
saw
it
as
a
failure
of
governance,
not
so
much
of
the
technology,
because
the
participants
is
so
long
as
you
had
the
largest
global
shipper
as
one
of
the
plank
holders
of
the
project,
the
perception
is
going
to
be.
I
am
not
going
to
I'm
going
to
feel
reluctant
to
join
it,
but
I'm
sure
not
going
to
be
putting
any
customer
data
onto
this
shared
architecture.
When.
E
F
They
are
one
of
the
plank
holders
and
you
can
assure
me
up
until
you're
blue
in
the
face
that
that
will
never
happen,
but
I'm
never
going
to
believe
you,
because
what
happens
when
it
does
I
don't
have
a
throat
to
choke
I.
Don't
have
somebody
to
come
back
because
again,
who
owns
the
our
controls?
The
the
architecture
who
you
know
has
the
final
say
in
dispute
resolution
and
who
can
compel
the
release
or
whatever
I
mean
right.
None
of
that
is
you
know,
is,
is
nailed
down
at
the
beginning.
So.
E
F
F
It
can
be
tricky
when
you're
trying
to
explain
the
whole
concept
of
zero
knowledge,
even
to
begin
with,
because
most
people
as
humans
are
going
to
say
until
I
I'm
only
going
to
accept
that
you've
proven
to
something
to
me
by
showing
it
to
me,
and
you
know
and
they're
like
well.
I
can't
show
it
to
you
or
I,
won't,
show
it
to
you.
I
can't
because
of
data
privacy
or
I
won't
because
I'll
get
fired.
F
F
Is
an
interesting
thing
mainly
because
it's
like
okay,
anyway
you're
only
as
good,
but
the
chat
GPD
is
scrubbing.
Data
from
the
internet
are
from
large
data
sets
and
stuff,
and
it's
like
okay,
have
you
made
sure,
can
your
can
chat?
Gbt,
tell
the
difference
between
confidential
and
regular
data.
No,
and
what
happens
is
wherever
you
source
that
data.
Did
you
own
it?
Okay?
Is
it
public
domain?
Can
you
actually
use
it
and
if
you
then
go
and
say
make
a
bunch
of
money
with
it?
F
F
F
E
A
C
A
So
is,
is
that
so
so,
so
how
is
that
until
you,
there
was
sort
of
like
a
general
state
day,
Channel
like
counter
factual
a
couple
years
ago
right.
So
what
what's
the?
What's
the
difference
between
what
you
were
doing
in
like
counterfactual,
which
is
also
was
doing
basically
like
state
state,
object,
Exchange.
C
They
use
just
multi-signature
agreements
on
state
increments
without
actually
performing
any
sort
of
validation
of
that
state.
So
what
we
can
do
with
zero
knowledge
is
instead
of
having
to
rely
on
everyone
saying
that
this
is
a
certain
State
outcome.
We
can
pre-define
certain
end
conditions
that
once
they're
reached
it's,
it's
provable
that
it
did
happen
and
it's
non-repeatable
that
it
didn't
like
it.
C
It's
it's
going
to
go,
Unchained,
no
matter
what
it's
going
to
verify,
no
matter
what
so
the
biggest
one
is
the
finality
most
likely,
but
again
just
just
actually
being
able
to
verify
that
state
and
there's
also.
So
it's
technically
like
you
are
hiding
State
off
Chain
by
the
nature
of
just
like
not
verifying
it,
but
it's
a
very
weird
type
of
privacy
and
it's
not
like
true
privacy,
I
would
say,
because
you've
still
got
the
counterparties
seeing
everything.
A
A
C
So
we
were
actually
even
looking
at
like
Risk
zero,
a
little
bit
when
kind
of
thinking
about
this
right.
Now
everything
is
application
specific,
and
this
was
also
something
that
was
a
problem
with
State
channels
themselves.
Generalized
State
channels
did
kind
of
come
out
towards
the
end,
but
there's
definitely
some
walkiness.
E
C
C
C
So
what
we
have
right
now
is
all
snarks,
but
like
the
way
Hermes
works.
I
think
is
that
they
have
a
bunch
of
snarks
for
their
op
codes
and
then
they
have
a
Stark
that
Aggregates
all
of
that,
and
we
have
been
messing
around
with
PCD
recursion,
but
we
got
some
interesting
feedback
at
CK
hack,
that's
kind
of
bringing
us
back
to
accumulation
which
would
fit
really
well
into
like.
C
A
C
A
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
it's
it's
it's
it's
a
it's
a
yeah,
it's
it's
the
it's!
The
thing.
I
I,
actually
think
that
that
you
know
if
we
can,
if
we
can
get,
if
we
can
get
like
Stark
friendly
pre-compiles,
then
we
should
be
able
to
get
to
to
to
be
able
to
use
to
use,
and
we
do
like
dark
proof.
You
know
via
accumulators
and
I
think
or
you
know,
recursion
recursion
then
I
think
it's
it's
worth
it's
it.
It
should
be
fine!