CIPs VS mi-cho-coq

CPS-???? | Governance Security [New Problem]: This problem statement describes security issues to be considered by protocol governance CIPs.

The Lace team is already working with the community on how to find the best way to develop the CIP-72 - DApp Registration & Discovery. If you’re interested in taking part, contribute here

All mobile wallets have some kind of dApp browser, but there are no hard specs for how they should be run that is implemented at the moment. You might be interested in CIP72 if you're interested in standards for this topic more generally: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/355

CIP-???? | Extend token metadata for translations [New Proposal]: This proposal defines an addition to CIP-25 | Media NFT Metadata Standard to support more languages than English.

If you wish to add your perspectives to CIP 1694, make sure to share them here. Add your voice as the era of Voltaire rolls out!

Last week, a community-led roundtable took place on the topic of CIP-1694. You can catch the recap and outcome in last week’s newsletter or this Cardano Forum recap here. Worth a read.

Conditions inside a native script (but there is a CIP for changing this here)

Thank you for the information! That is very important. Actually I wrote a specification https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/442 where I address exactly that issue.

There are similarities between the promises made by Cardano and what you find in Tezos: * proof-of-stake L1s * on-chain voting: Voltaire for Cardano vs periodic elections on Tezos (already 8 important upgrades of the protocol that were voted for, with the Foundation abstaining!) * formal verification of contracts and the chain itself: mentioned here for Cardano vs several projects in Tezos (Mi-Cho-Coq, foobar.land, both using the Coq proof assistant) * ongoing work on L2s: Hydra for Cardano vs Deku, zkRollups and optimistic rollups as well (a bit similar to Arbitrum IIRC).

We are not working with LIGO to verify smart contracts, more with Mi-Cho-Coq which aims to verify smart contracts directly at the Michelson level. Using Mi-Cho-Coq it is possible to verify the Michelson output of LIGO or SmartPy. I heard LIGO people also have projects to do verification directly at the LIGO's level or verify the implementation of the LIGO compiler.

Formal verification for smart contracts. Many (Not all) categories of vulnerabilities can be avoided that way. See fe: https://medium.com/coinmonks/verify-a-smart-contract-with-archetype-6e0ea548e2da or https://gitlab.com/nomadic-labs/mi-cho-coq which can be used on any michelson code.

The link to the Coq formalization of Michelson, to formally verify smart-contracts: https://gitlab.com/nomadic-labs/mi-cho-coq

Web assembly is stack-based and there are tools like KWasm for formal verification - so a move to WASM is a more likely candidate... but Michelson is a very capable and verifiable stack based low-level language too. https://gitlab.com/nomadic-labs/mi-cho-coq/