Create caip-320.md

[mod]

State Channel Protocol CAIP

Summary for Pull Request

This proposal introduces the Chain Agnostic State Transition Protocol, leveraging the principles of Nitro Protocol to enable state channel functionality across diverse blockchain environments.

Key Benefits:

1. Universal Compatibility: Abstracts execution rules from the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), making the protocol adaptable to L1 and L2 chains with varying consensus mechanisms.
2. Efficient State Execution: Facilitates off-chain state updates, reducing gas costs and improving scalability.
3. Interoperable Asset Management: Supports multiple token standards and custom allocation mechanisms for seamless asset redistribution.
4. Modular Design: Allows applications to define bespoke execution rules, fostering flexibility for different use cases.
5. Enhanced Privacy and Security: Operates primarily off-chain, reducing data exposure, while ensuring cryptographic integrity of state updates and dispute resolutions.

This CAIP paves the way for a unified standard for state channels, promoting interoperability and reducing integration complexity across blockchain ecosystems.

[bumblefudge]

Hey! Thanks for taking the time to write this up as a CAIP, I think you have the beginnings of a very useful document here.

What I'm a little confused about is what exactly is being specified here-- the protocol itself is clearly defined and governed elsewhere, so my first instinct is to edit this document to more explicitly be an "integration guide" (for wallets and dapps and intents parsers and transaction simulators and block explorers) so that they can understand and validate the transactions on a given chain (conformant, of course, with the specific syntax of that L1/VM) that commit to, or execute, a Nitro cross-chain transaction.

If this is the direction that's most useful for Nitro to take this document, then what you've got here is kind of like an "abstract data model" (any Nitro commitment txn will contain at least these mandatory properties, and optionally these additional ones, modulo shape variations), but from there to something actionable per L1/VM there's a few steps, I would think. Namely, you'd want to think of the CAIP as a template for per-L1/VM "profiles" over in the namespaces registry; you don't have to exhaustively write all those yourself, but usually picking 2 VMs that you're familiar with (maybe Cosmos and EVM/Tron, for example, something that's already in prod ideally) and working backwards from the usecase of "dapp developers wants to validate Nitro transactions from chain X to chain Y using these two profiles" (and from Y to X). This way you can be sure the CAIP is general enough to be a superset of X and Y VM-specific application of it, but also that the CAIP is explicit enough to help future documentors write profile Z and ZZ...

There might be other directions you're trying to go with this, tho, so I won't keep belaboring this possible path forward too much. Perhaps you were thinking more about implementing or testing Nitro bridges against interface docs? Who are you hoping will find out about Nitro through the CAIP and/or its profiles, or use the CASA documentation to implement Nitro?