I know, I'm sorry. I guess I just read too many users, who trusted AI too much. A good exercise to test AI is to ask about things you know, because then, it is easier to spot, how models can hallucinate. When it comes to the merkle tree, then you have only transaction hash there. By checking that hash alone, you only know, that a given transaction was included, but you don't know any details about inputs, outputs, or anything else. You don't even know in that case, if hashed data is even a transaction, and not something completely different (for example block header). Well, it's better than nothing, because if you have some merkle tree, and you can check, that a given hash was properly included in a block, then you know, that someone put a lot of Proof of Work to make it. But still, there were fake or invalid blocks, so even if it is better than nothing, I would still be careful, to call it "a proof". There are many things, which are based on simple concepts. For example: when it comes to "ringsig", then you probably heard about "Ring Signatures" in the context of 90ph. Here, it is very similar, but just applied on secp256k1, instead of Curve25519. And because the proof is not executed on-chain, but just verified outside, it can use a lot of features, which don't have to be fully covered by consensus rules, so there is a lot of freedom, when it comes to implementing such models.
I know, I'm sorry. I guess I just read too many users, who trusted AI too much. A good exercise to test AI is to ask about things you know, because then, it is easier to spot, how models can hallucinate. When it comes to the merkle tree, then you have only transaction hash there. By checking that hash alone, you only know, that a given transaction was included, but you don't know any details about inputs, outputs, or anything else. You don't even know in that case, if hashed data is even a transaction, and not something completely different (for example block header). Well, it's better than nothing, because if you have some merkle tree, and you can check, that a given hash was properly included in a block, then you know, that someone put a lot of Proof of Work to make it. But still, there were fake or invalid blocks, so even if it is better than nothing, I would still be careful, to call it "a proof". There are many things, which are based on simple concepts. For example: when it comes to "ringsig", then you probably heard about "Ring Signatures" in the context of 90ph. Here, it is very similar, but just applied on secp256k1, instead of Curve25519. And because the proof is not executed on-chain, but just verified outside, it can use a lot of features, which don't have to be fully covered by consensus rules, so there is a lot of freedom, when it comes to implementing such models.

I know, I'm sorry. I guess I just read too many users, who trusted AI too much. A good exercise to test AI is to ask about things you know, because then, it is easier to spot, how models can hallucinate. When it comes to the merkle tree, then you have only transaction hash there. By checking that hash alone, you only know, that a given transaction was included, but you don't know any details about inputs, outputs, or anything else. You don't even know in that case, if hashed data is even a transaction, and not something completely different (for example block header). Well, it's better than nothing, because if you have some merkle tree, and you can check, that a given hash was properly included in a block, then you know, that someone put a lot of Proof of Work to make it. But still, there were fake or invalid blocks, so even if it is better than nothing, I would still be careful, to call it "a proof". There are many things, which are based on simple concepts. For example: when it comes to "ringsig", then you probably heard about "Ring Signatures" in the context of 90ph. Here, it is very similar, but just applied on secp256k1, instead of Curve25519. And because the proof is not executed on-chain, but just verified outside, it can use a lot of features, which don't have to be fully covered by consensus rules, so there is a lot of freedom, when it comes to implementing such models.

I know, I'm sorry. I guess I just read too many users, who trusted AI too much. A good exercise to test AI is to ask about things you know, because then, it is easier to spot, how models can hallucinate. When it comes to the merkle tree, then you have only transaction hash there. By checking that hash alone, you only know, that a given transaction was included, but you don't know any details about inputs, outputs, or anything else. You don't even know in that case, if hashed data is even a transaction, and not something completely different (for example block header). Well, it's better than nothing, because if you have some merkle tree, and you can check, that a given hash was properly included in a block, then you know, that someone put a lot of Proof of Work to make it. But still, there were fake or invalid blocks, so even if it is better than nothing, I would still be careful, to call it "a proof". There are many things, which are based on simple concepts. For example: when it comes to "ringsig", then you probably heard about "Ring Signatures" in the context of 90ph. Here, it is very similar, but just applied on secp256k1, instead of Curve25519. And because the proof is not executed on-chain, but just verified outside, it can use a lot of features, which don't have to be fully covered by consensus rules, so there is a lot of freedom, when it comes to implementing such models.