Greetings, I am investigating potential of using Neptune for a high TPS private commercial system and utilizing a security mechanism that could wrap the rust code so wondering if there would be a possibility to replace Stark with Snark to eliminate the high computational cost of Stark/mining.
I understand the security aspect of proof of work but for a private coin that is not really important.
I am very enthusiastic about Neptune and hope there is a way to navigate this. It is possible we could allow our private coin to be used to purchase Neptune for partial funds left over for instance or other scenarios.
In the whitepaper it mentions needing 50 cores and lots of memory for one of the proofs could this security mechanism be foregone given we have security encasing the entire private coin otherwise.
Best regards from the U.S.
if there would be a possibility to replace Stark with Snark to eliminate the high computational cost of Stark/mining.
The main reason for using STARKs instead of SNARKs is that STARKs are more recursion-friendly, which is precisely the property you need if you want to do transaction aggregation as fast as possible.
In the whitepaper it mentions needing 50 cores and lots of memory for one of the proofs could this security mechanism be foregone given we have security encasing the entire private coin otherwise.
The parallelism and memory requirements for proving are not a security mechanism, although they do contribute to making the chain hard to reorganize. Instead, they are a side-effect of the proof system. If you take out the consensus mechanism and leave in transaction aggregation, then you still have these resource requirements.
More to the point, if you don’t need a consensus mechanism because your private centralized operator is trusted, then why do you need proofs at all? Let the operator verify transaction signatures, and aggregate verified transactions, and sign the resulting aggregate.