Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systems evaluation demonstrates scalable transaction throughput in peer-to-peer ledgers, indicating that decoupled verification lowers per-node operational costs as networks expand.
Every major blockchain scales by making every node re-execute every transaction against a shared global state. As throughput grows, node requirements grow with it, and the network centralizes. We propose a ledger built from self-certifying state transitions. Each transaction carries the state it read and the state it wrote, so verifying it is a pure function of its bytes: no disk, no history, no trust, no bound on parallelism. The chain itself never executes. It orders certificates and commits them with a deterministic fold that applies each certificate whose declared inputs still hold and skips the rest. Skipping is not failure but a priced event. Every certificate is underwritten by a party who insures it against staleness, so conflicts have owners, equivocation is objectively slashable, and spam is expensive by construction. Contracts declare, per storage slot, whether access is exact, guarded, or commutative; payments, tips, and mints therefore never contend. Fees split into two markets, one for sequential state mutation, which is scarce, and one for parallel verification, which is not; heavy cryptography is therefore cheap by design. This property enables confidential payments -- hidden amounts and one-time recipient addresses over a public transaction graph -- whose cryptographic cost lands entirely in the parallel market and whose inflation risk a fold rule bounds to the balance of a shielded pool, not merely audits after the fact. Only commitment is sequential, and commitment is a loop over memory. Every node verifies everything at launch, cheaply and in parallel; once verification is sampled rather than repeated, per-node cost falls as the network grows.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simstoshi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: