LibraryScaling2024Design paperCorpus record
BoLD: a bounded dispute protocol for an optimistic rollup
Arbitrum BoLD. Offchain Labs.
BoLD tries to bound how long a dispute can be delayed by an adversary, so a single honest party can finish a challenge against many liars.
A reading of the project's public design document. Not a copy, not a benchmark, and not an offer.
BoLD tries to bound how long a dispute can be delayed by an adversary, so a single honest party can finish a challenge against many liars.
- Evidence
- Primary paper
- Re-measured
- No
- Assumptions
- 3
- Records linked
- 3
01 Claim ledger
What the paper is allowed to say
Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.
Claim 01 · Paper model
The defect
A classic interactive fraud proof can stall if an attacker opens more disputes than one honest party can answer in time.
Claim 02 · Paper model
The proposal
BoLD tries to bound how long a dispute can be delayed by an adversary, so a single honest party can finish a challenge against many liars.
Claim 03 · Paper model
The mechanism
The dispute is still about an execution trace of the rollup, not about a price and not about a vote of token holders.
Claim 04 · Paper model
The bound
This note does not say which Arbitrum chain has activated BoLD, or on which date.
02 Three cuts
Observation, model, falsifier
A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.
01 The defect
Observation
What the study says
A classic interactive fraud proof can stall if an attacker opens more disputes than one honest party can answer in time.
Model
What has to hold
The safety claim is about the dispute game as specified, not about a bridge's current admin keys.
Falsifier
What would retire it
What resource does an attacker have to spend to open a parallel dispute?
02 The proposal
Observation
What the study says
BoLD tries to bound how long a dispute can be delayed by an adversary, so a single honest party can finish a challenge against many liars.
Model
What has to hold
The safety claim is about the dispute game as specified, not about a bridge's current admin keys.
Falsifier
What would retire it
Is the data available to the party who would challenge?
03 The mechanism
Observation
What the study says
The dispute is still about an execution trace of the rollup, not about a price and not about a vote of token holders.
Model
What has to hold
The safety claim is about the dispute game as specified, not about a bridge's current admin keys.
Falsifier
What would retire it
What resource does an attacker have to spend to open a parallel dispute?
04 The bound
Observation
What the study says
This note does not say which Arbitrum chain has activated BoLD, or on which date.
Model
What has to hold
The safety claim is about the dispute game as specified, not about a bridge's current admin keys.
Falsifier
What would retire it
What is the statement being disputed: which machine and which claim?
03 Sequence
One action, as an operating tape
- 01The dispute is still about an execution trace of the rollup, not about a price and not about a vote of token holders.
- 02A bound on delay is a claim inside the dispute game. It is not a claim about bridge liquidity or sequencer uptime.
- 03BoLD does not retire the need to publish the data the challenger must inspect.
04 Load-bearing
The argument, and where a pitch drops it
What the name has to mean
The cut
BoLD tries to bound how long a dispute can be delayed by an adversary, so a single honest party can finish a challenge against many liars.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
A bounded dispute is not a validity proof. One honest challenger still has to show up.
What actually moves
The cut
A bound on delay is a claim inside the dispute game. It is not a claim about bridge liquidity or sequencer uptime.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
It does not quote a bond size or a delay in days. Those parameters live in the deployment, not in this sentence.
What a later deployment may change
The cut
BoLD does not retire the need to publish the data the challenger must inspect.
Why it carries weight
If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.
Where it is dropped
A bounded dispute is not a validity proof. One honest challenger still has to show up.
05 Register
What has to be true
Cryptography · Not re-measured
The safety claim is about the dispute game as specified, not about a bridge's current admin keys.
Model · Not re-measured
The document is the one at the source URL. A marketing page with the same brand is not this text.
Model · Not re-measured
No price, supply, yield, or adoption figure is added by this desk.
06 Divergence
What happened after the paper
A bounded dispute is not a validity proof. One honest challenger still has to show up.
A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.
07 Pre-mortem
What to check before you use the idea
- 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.
08 Anatomy
The paper, in the order a builder needs
The problem it names
A classic interactive fraud proof can stall if an attacker opens more disputes than one honest party can answer in time.
What the design proposes
- The dispute is still about an execution trace of the rollup, not about a price and not about a vote of token holders.
- A bound on delay is a claim inside the dispute game. It is not a claim about bridge liquidity or sequencer uptime.
- BoLD does not retire the need to publish the data the challenger must inspect.
How the mechanism is specified
- The dispute is still about an execution trace of the rollup, not about a price and not about a vote of token holders.
- A bound on delay is a claim inside the dispute game. It is not a claim about bridge liquidity or sequencer uptime.
- BoLD does not retire the need to publish the data the challenger must inspect.
What this page does not treat as proven
- This note does not say which Arbitrum chain has activated BoLD, or on which date.
- It does not quote a bond size or a delay in days. Those parameters live in the deployment, not in this sentence.
- A bounded dispute is not a validity proof. One honest challenger still has to show up.
Why the desk still reads it
BoLD tries to bound how long a dispute can be delayed by an adversary, so a single honest party can finish a challenge against many liars.
09 Lexicon
Terms, opened into the record
- Dispute game
- A protocol that narrows a disagreement about execution until a step can be checked.
- Honest party
- One party that follows the challenge rules. The paper's bound is about that party, not about a market.
10 Repository
Every linked record on this page
Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.
This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.
Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.