Separate immediate feedback, publication, settlement and exit rights.
LET’S PICTURE IT
Follow one fictional transfer across a layered system and label what evidence supports each stage.
SEE IT FOR YOURSELF
Link blocks, then see what an edit breaksStep 1 / 4
The first toy block records Maya sending Leo three units. A1 is an illustrative fingerprint label, not a real cryptographic digest.
The first toy block records Maya sending Leo three units. A1 is an illustrative fingerprint label, not a real cryptographic digest.Block two stores a reference to A1. A new page is connected to the prior page through its fingerprint.Block three refers to B2. The linked history now has three pages, each building on the previous one.Editing block one changes its toy fingerprint to X9. Block two still refers to A1, so its parent link is invalid and the downstream continuation needs revalidation.
Animated local teaching model. No wallet, RPC or live blockchain data. Some labels and hashes are abbreviated for readability.
Scenario: quick acknowledgment
A sequencer says a request was accepted. That is useful feedback but not automatically proof that its data is published or its state transition has settled on Ethereum.
Scenario: a valid proof
A verifier accepts a proof for specified state inputs and outputs. Ask whether the intended rules were encoded and whether users can obtain the required data. Correctness and availability remain distinct.
Scenario: a fast bridge
A service supplies destination assets quickly using its liquidity. That can introduce a different route from the canonical bridge, with its own dependencies and failure conditions.
Scenario: a familiar address
The same address appears on two networks with different balances. This is normal separate state, not proof of a broken unit conversion. A network switch does not itself transfer assets.