The actual quote is "we are not *currently* at the point where we can be confident enough in the complex code of an optimistic or SNARK-based EVM verifier". The article seems to imply that "in the end", they will be.
Unlike the parent, the full quote gives me more confidence that they're being serious about the upgrades to the Ethereum protocol. This stuff is all cutting edge distribute systems and zero-knowledge proofs work, so of course it's going to take a while to reach confidence in how it'll work.
Something tells me that even if/when the optimistic or SNARK-based EVM verifier is production-ready, the person you're replying to will still feel somewhat unconvinced.
Very likely, but if they get it sorted out one day he will be using it without knowing.
If you have no interest whatsoever and they start explaining to you all the cryptography behind establishing a secure connection to your bank most people would dismiss it as mumbo-jumbo. But now you can tell your grandma to look out for the little green lock on the web that makes her account secure.
I will know. Not because of the "little green lock".
I will know in the same way I know this site is secure. In this case, because of PKCS #1 SHA-256 (aka CKM_SHA1_RSA_PKCS_PSS). Cert issued by DigiCert Global Root G2 and valid until one second before midnight UTC on 3/29/31.
That's where I guess I'm losing sight of the vision.
It's tested, it's proven, it's secure, it works, no "gas", no fees ... I don't know. Maybe I'm just missing something.
