Naming things: The Proofs formerly known as Fraud

[maurelian]

TLDR: 'Fraud Proof' is a bad name. Please help us identify a good one.

Motivation

'Fraud Proof's (hereafter referred to as The Mechanism are a critical (if not definitive) component of Optimistic Rollups.

One cannot achieve even a basic high level understanding of the ORU design pattern without encountering and discussing them.

However we've found over time that the negative connotations of the word "Fraud" tend to impede, rather than facilitate a clear understanding of how an optimistic system should work.
Moreover, Fraud implies intent when it is possible for an honest party to submit invalid state roots due to software bugs.

For these reason we're looking for input on a new name for The Mechanism, which would be more literally descriptive, and more accessible to the general public.

Here are some of the ideas we've batted around already:

• Correctness Challenge
• Transaction Result Challenge
• Transaction Challenge ¹
• State Proposal Challenge
• State Transition Challenge
• Execution Challenge
• Rollup State Challenge
• Verification challenge

Clearly we really like the term "Challenge", but that's also up for debate if you have alternative suggestions.

Technical Footnotes:

1. A common misunderstanding even among very knowledgable people is that the challenge applies to a Transaction, and that the transaction can be removed or reverted if it is 'fraudulent'. However that is not the case; all transactions are valid, and can be included in the chain, it is only the proposed result of executing the transaction that can be challenged. (This is why we've already rejected 'Transaction Challenge').

2. It's worth noting that the eventual design of The Mechanism will actually challenge state transitions which result from executing multiple transactions.

[0xalizk]

FIST: Foiling Invalid State Transitions

[smartcontracts]

I don't think the word "State" should be in any names that we use. It's a confusing concept, especially for people who don't have a background in computer science.

[smartcontracts]

My vote is for "Transaction Result Challenge".

It's clear and mostly accurate. You're challenging the published result of one or more transactions.

[smartcontracts]

"Transaction Result Challenge" also allows you to easily lead into the point that "you're not challenging transactions, you're challenging transaction results".

[maurelian]

This is probably the most direct AND accessible (more people understand 'transaction' than 'state').
How would you translate this sentence from the current nomenclature?

The fraudulent state transition occurred at step 20 of the execution...

[A2be]

The state transition that occurred at step 20 of the execution was challenged, and the transaction result was reverted since the challenge demonstrated xyz about the initial result on the Optimism Layer 2 chain.

[Nicca42]

• Execution Validation
• Batch Validation
• Correctness Proof
• Validity Challenge
• Execution Result Challenge (running on from @smartcontracts answer, removes possible confusion of it being about challenging transactions)

[maurelian]

Thanks! I think among these 'Correctness Proof' (or 'Challenge') would be my favorite. Correct/incorrect are quite accessible, and it also provide an obvious answer to my question here, ie. we'd say

The incorrect state transition occurred at step 20 of the execution...

[norswap]

What about "fault proof"?

Advantages:

1. rolls off the tongue, short
2. sounds similar to "fraud proof"
3. not misleading: doesn't seem to entail something about transactions being invalid, or wrong state roots being necessarily intentional

These may small things, but I think they matter.

Regarding (1), I think "transaction result challenge" is clearest... but also it's a mouthful, people aren't going to bother typing it out. A vote for "transaction result challenge" is a vote for "TRC" because that's what people will end up using.

Regarding (2), fraud proof is well established and people are going to continue using it. The real reason we're changing is (a) because fraud implies intent and there isn't always intent behind a wrong state being computed (could be a bug), (b) legal implications of the word "fraud". I think fault proof solves both issues while sounding so similar to fraud proof that people will immediately make the connection.

[maurelian]

The more I think about this the more I like it.

[smartcontracts]

Yeah, I think this is the best one yet.

[maurelian]

Ah, well if you're coming around, and @stonecoldpat agrees, I think we've got a winner.

[jennypollack]

froof

[transmissions11]

slaps

[Dominator008]

Invalidity Proof? In contrast to validity proofs.

[kethcode]

Well, the Proof is a list of valid transactions. Transactions not in the list have not been confirmed valid. The list itself also needs to be internally consistent. So it's more like an audit than anything else.

So, Validity Audit, perhaps? Block Audit? Fault Audit?

In general usage, people will be refering to 'It' as valid or invalid, so shouldn't use that word. It's a valid audit, or an invalid audit. If Audit is too accounting-specific, we could trying some similar words, but this is where I'm landing right now.

---

Just read up. Fault Proof is pretty good. Similar feeling, and retails some familiar terminology. I could see Fault Proof or Fault Audit working well.