[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  FRANKLIN_CRYPTO (Ø,G) [@saoode990](/creator/twitter/saoode990) on x 1357 followers Created: 2025-07-24 14:27:08 UTC Mega GM ENDGAME: How ZK fortifies MegaETH Every optimistic rollup relies on a key premise: any proposed state is considered correct unless someone can prove it’s wrong. But this promise only holds if there’s a strong fraud-proof system in place. Without it, the chain’s security breaks down an invalid state could slip through unchallenged, or attackers could freeze settlement with bad-faith disputes. The Challenge of Proving Fraud To uphold this core assumption, an optimistic L2 needs a robust fraud proof system also known as a dispute resolution protocol that empowers validators (the challengers) to contest suspicious state proposals submitted by the sequencer (the proposer). This system must guarantee two vital things: 👉Any invalid state proposal gets caught. 👉Invalid challenges don’t succeed. Behind the scenes, this works through two main parts: 👉A challenge subprotocol that settles disputes over a single proposed state. 👉A tournament mechanism that sifts through multiple competing proposals for the same block to pick out the one true result. Each proposal is essentially a claim about how a batch of transactions plays out. It has three elements: 👉Initial state: the last finalized L2 state on Ethereum. 👉Payload: the batch of L2 transactions processed since then. 👉Final state: the new state the proposer says results from running that payload. The visualization: An overview of the components which make up a state proposal and challenge Interactive Fault Proofs (The Bisection Game) The standard method used by most optimistic rollups today is an interactive back-and-forth between the challenger and the proposer. When a dispute arises, both sides run a “bisection game”: they split the computation transcript (the sequence of intermediate results claimed by the proposer) in half to pinpoint where things went wrong. They keep dividing the transcript step by step, zeroing in on the exact computation step that’s incorrect like a transaction that was executed improperly. Once they’ve isolated the faulty step, they replay it directly on Ethereum to prove whether or not fraud took place. The visualization The classic bisection games which take place during the challenge of an optimistic settlement This system isn’t without flaws: Latency: Every round of the interaction needs an onchain Ethereum transaction. Resolving a single dispute can drag on for hours or even days, especially if the network is congested or under attack. Proposer workload: Even when the proposer is acting honestly and the challenge has no merit, they’re still forced to fully engage in the dispute, which demands real time and effort. Griefing attacks: Malicious challengers can repeatedly trigger pointless disputes, draining honest proposers of time and gas as they defend valid state updates again and again. Non-Interactive Fraud Proofs (ZK Challenge Model) MegaETH is charting a new path by shifting to a non-interactive model. Here, a challenger only needs to generate a single succinct zero-knowledge proof that shows the proposer’s final state is invalid. The proof demonstrates that running the payload from the given initial state does not produce the final state claimed. This is achieved with the RISC Zero zkVM, using the OP Kailua-inspired hybrid design for non-interactive fraud proofs. The challenger submits this proof to Ethereum in just one transaction, where an onchain verifier checks if it’s valid. The proposer does nothing, can’t meddle, and doesn’t participate in the challenge at all. Generating the proof is non-trivial it requires running the disputed computation inside a zkVM, which is estimated to take XXX billion cycles and cost in the order of $XXX in the worst case [1]. But this cost is incurred only when fraud is proven, and by design, borne by the dishonest party. This removes the capital burden from honest challengers and eliminates the griefing risk common in bisection-based systems. ZK for Fraud, Not Just Validity In crypto, “zero-knowledge” usually gets equated with ZK rollups systems that rely on ZK proofs to confirm every state transition before committing it onchain. But that’s only half the picture of what ZK tech can do. MegaETH flips this script by using ZK not to prove what’s valid, but to prove what’s invalid. This keeps the optimistic rollup’s scalability and efficiency, while adding a trust-minimized, non-interactive way to catch and challenge bad state transitions. We call this hybrid design ZK fraud proofs it blends the best of both worlds and unlocks a new trust model altogether. Same Challenge Window, Drastically Faster Finality To stay cautious, MegaETH keeps the standard 7-day challenge period you see on most optimistic rollups so anyone has a full week to contest a proposed state root. But what really changes is what happens after a challenge is made. In the traditional interactive model, a challenge filed on day X could drag on for days, freezing the chain’s finality on Ethereum until the dispute is settled. During this time, protocols are stuck in limbo and the chain’s liveness is at risk. With ZK fraud proofs, the entire process wraps up in about an hour. The challenger generates the proof, submits it on L1, and finality is immediate. Secured by EigenDA For the fraud proof system to work, challengers need dependable, easy access to the raw block data so they can fully re-execute any disputed computation. That’s why MegaETH combines its ZK fraud model with EigenDA a decentralized, high-throughput data availability layer. This setup keeps the process both secure and efficient: The sequencer posts all block data to EigenDA, while only committing a small reference hash to Ethereum. EigenDA’s cryptographic guarantees make sure the data can’t be withheld so a fraud proof can always be generated if needed. Any watcher can pull the raw data, rebuild the block, and verify it independently using the zkVM. If an invalid state is found, the watcher submits a succinct ZK fraud proof to the verifier contract on Ethereum. The sequencer is then slashed and its invalid proposal is discarded. A Cryptographically Sound, Scalable Trust Model MegaETH swaps out clunky interactive fraud challenges for sleek, non-interactive ZK fraud proofs. This wipes out griefing risks, cuts down finality times, and makes resolving disputes faster and more scalable. With @RiscZero powering provable computation and @eigen_da guaranteeing reliable access to raw block data, every proposal stays fully reconstructable, verifiable, and open to challenge by anyone, at any scale. CC :@0xSami_M @megaeth_labs  XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [theres a](/topic/theres-a) [megaeth](/topic/megaeth) [zk](/topic/zk) [endgame](/topic/endgame) [mega](/topic/mega) [Post Link](https://x.com/saoode990/status/1948389489174528009)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
FRANKLIN_CRYPTO (Ø,G) @saoode990 on x 1357 followers
Created: 2025-07-24 14:27:08 UTC
Mega GM
ENDGAME: How ZK fortifies MegaETH
Every optimistic rollup relies on a key premise: any proposed state is considered correct unless someone can prove it’s wrong. But this promise only holds if there’s a strong fraud-proof system in place. Without it, the chain’s security breaks down an invalid state could slip through unchallenged, or attackers could freeze settlement with bad-faith disputes.
The Challenge of Proving Fraud
To uphold this core assumption, an optimistic L2 needs a robust fraud proof system also known as a dispute resolution protocol that empowers validators (the challengers) to contest suspicious state proposals submitted by the sequencer (the proposer).
This system must guarantee two vital things:
👉Any invalid state proposal gets caught.
👉Invalid challenges don’t succeed.
Behind the scenes, this works through two main parts:
👉A challenge subprotocol that settles disputes over a single proposed state.
👉A tournament mechanism that sifts through multiple competing proposals for the same block to pick out the one true result.
Each proposal is essentially a claim about how a batch of transactions plays out. It has three elements:
👉Initial state: the last finalized L2 state on Ethereum.
👉Payload: the batch of L2 transactions processed since then.
👉Final state: the new state the proposer says results from running that payload.
The visualization:
An overview of the components which make up a state proposal and challenge
Interactive Fault Proofs (The Bisection Game)
The standard method used by most optimistic rollups today is an interactive back-and-forth between the challenger and the proposer.
When a dispute arises, both sides run a “bisection game”: they split the computation transcript (the sequence of intermediate results claimed by the proposer) in half to pinpoint where things went wrong.
They keep dividing the transcript step by step, zeroing in on the exact computation step that’s incorrect like a transaction that was executed improperly. Once they’ve isolated the faulty step, they replay it directly on Ethereum to prove whether or not fraud took place.
The visualization
The classic bisection games which take place during the challenge of an optimistic settlement
This system isn’t without flaws:
Latency: Every round of the interaction needs an onchain Ethereum transaction. Resolving a single dispute can drag on for hours or even days, especially if the network is congested or under attack.
Proposer workload: Even when the proposer is acting honestly and the challenge has no merit, they’re still forced to fully engage in the dispute, which demands real time and effort.
Griefing attacks: Malicious challengers can repeatedly trigger pointless disputes, draining honest proposers of time and gas as they defend valid state updates again and again.
Non-Interactive Fraud Proofs (ZK Challenge Model)
MegaETH is charting a new path by shifting to a non-interactive model. Here, a challenger only needs to generate a single succinct zero-knowledge proof that shows the proposer’s final state is invalid. The proof demonstrates that running the payload from the given initial state does not produce the final state claimed.
This is achieved with the RISC Zero zkVM, using the OP Kailua-inspired hybrid design for non-interactive fraud proofs. The challenger submits this proof to Ethereum in just one transaction, where an onchain verifier checks if it’s valid. The proposer does nothing, can’t meddle, and doesn’t participate in the challenge at all.
Generating the proof is non-trivial it requires running the disputed computation inside a zkVM, which is estimated to take XXX billion cycles and cost in the order of $XXX in the worst case [1]. But this cost is incurred only when fraud is proven, and by design, borne by the dishonest party. This removes the capital burden from honest challengers and eliminates the griefing risk common in bisection-based systems.
ZK for Fraud, Not Just Validity
In crypto, “zero-knowledge” usually gets equated with ZK rollups systems that rely on ZK proofs to confirm every state transition before committing it onchain. But that’s only half the picture of what ZK tech can do.
MegaETH flips this script by using ZK not to prove what’s valid, but to prove what’s invalid. This keeps the optimistic rollup’s scalability and efficiency, while adding a trust-minimized, non-interactive way to catch and challenge bad state transitions.
We call this hybrid design ZK fraud proofs it blends the best of both worlds and unlocks a new trust model altogether.
Same Challenge Window, Drastically Faster Finality
To stay cautious, MegaETH keeps the standard 7-day challenge period you see on most optimistic rollups so anyone has a full week to contest a proposed state root. But what really changes is what happens after a challenge is made.
In the traditional interactive model, a challenge filed on day X could drag on for days, freezing the chain’s finality on Ethereum until the dispute is settled. During this time, protocols are stuck in limbo and the chain’s liveness is at risk.
With ZK fraud proofs, the entire process wraps up in about an hour. The challenger generates the proof, submits it on L1, and finality is immediate.
Secured by EigenDA
For the fraud proof system to work, challengers need dependable, easy access to the raw block data so they can fully re-execute any disputed computation. That’s why MegaETH combines its ZK fraud model with EigenDA a decentralized, high-throughput data availability layer.
This setup keeps the process both secure and efficient:
The sequencer posts all block data to EigenDA, while only committing a small reference hash to Ethereum. EigenDA’s cryptographic guarantees make sure the data can’t be withheld so a fraud proof can always be generated if needed.
Any watcher can pull the raw data, rebuild the block, and verify it independently using the zkVM.
If an invalid state is found, the watcher submits a succinct ZK fraud proof to the verifier contract on Ethereum. The sequencer is then slashed and its invalid proposal is discarded.
A Cryptographically Sound, Scalable Trust Model
MegaETH swaps out clunky interactive fraud challenges for sleek, non-interactive ZK fraud proofs. This wipes out griefing risks, cuts down finality times, and makes resolving disputes faster and more scalable.
With @RiscZero powering provable computation and @eigen_da guaranteeing reliable access to raw block data, every proposal stays fully reconstructable, verifiable, and open to challenge by anyone, at any scale.
CC :@0xSami_M @megaeth_labs
XXX engagements
