# StarkNet State

The state of StarkNet consists of:

- contract instances: a mapping between addresses (251 bit field elements) and contractâ€™s state.
- contract classes: a mapping between class hash and the class definition

A contract state consists of:

- class_hash (defines the functionality)
- contract storage (a key-value mapping where the key/values are field elements)

With the above definition, we can provide a brief sketch of StarkNetâ€™s transition function. A transaction $tx$ transitions the system from state $S$ to state $Sâ€™$ if:

- $tx$ is an invoke transaction, and the storage of $Sâ€™$ is the result of executing the target contract code with respect to the previous state $S$ (the arguments, contract address, and the specific entry point are part of the transaction)
- $tx$ is a deploy transaction, and $Sâ€™$ contains the new contractâ€™s state at the contractâ€™s address. Additionally, the storage of $S$ is updated according to the execution of the contractâ€™s constructor.
- $tx$ is a declare transaction, and $S'$ contains the class hash and definition in the contract classes mapping

## State Commitmentâ€‹

The state commitment is a digest which uniquely (up to hash collisions) encodes the state. In StarkNet, the commitment is the root of a binary Merkle-Patricia tree of height 251. Like Ethereum, this is a 2-level structure where the contract address determines the path from the root to the leaf encoding the contract state. The information stored in the leaf is:

Where:

- $\text{contract\_hash}$ is the hash of the contractâ€™s definition discussed here
- $\text{storage\_root}$ is the root of another Merkle-Patricia tree of height 251 that is constructed from the contractâ€™s storage
- $h$ is the Pedersen hash function.

##### info

Note that, as of the time of writing, the commitment does not include classes information. This will be added in future versions.

### Merkle-Patricia treeâ€‹

#### Specificationsâ€‹

As mentioned above, our commitment scheme uses a binary Merkle-Patricia tree with the Pedersen hash function. Each node in the tree is represented by a triplet $(length, path, bottom)$. The actual data is placed in the leaves, and a leaf node with data $x$ is encoded by the triplet $(0,0,x)$. Empty nodes (leaves or internal) are encoded by the zero triplet $(0,0,0)$. A subtree rooted at a node $(length, path, bottom)$ has a single non-empty subtree, rooted at the node obtained by following the path specified by $path$.

$path$ is an integer in $[0, 2^{length}-1]$, and the binary expansion of $path$ indicates how should we proceed along the tree, where the first step is indicated by the most significant bit, and $0,1$ are interpreted as left, right correspondingly. Note that the reason that length is specified and cannot be deduced from $path$ is that weâ€™re dealing with field elements of fixed size (251 bits each). For a node with $length>0$, following $path$ leads the highest node whose both right and left child are none empty.

The following rules specify how the tree is constructed from a given set of leaves:

The hash of a node $N =(length, path, bottom)$, denoted by $H(N)$, is:

Note that any arithmetic operations in the above are done in our field.

We can now proceed to recursively define the nodes in the trie. The triplet representing the parent of the nodes $left=(\ell_L, p_L, b_L)$, $right=(\ell_R, p_R, b_R)$ is given by:

#### Example Trieâ€‹

We now show an example of the construction of a height 3 Merkle-Patricia tree from the leaves $[0,0,1,0,0,1,0,0]$:

Where $r=h(H(2,2,1),H((2,1,1))$. Note that in our example there is no skipping from the root (length is zero), so the final commitment to the tree will be $H((0,0,r))=r$.

Suppose that we want to prove, with respect to the commitment we have just computed, that the value of the leaf whose path is given by $101$ is $1$. In a standard Merkle tree, the proof would have consisted of data from three nodes (siblings along the path to the root). Here, since the tree is sparse, we only need to send the two children of the root $(2,2,1), (2,1,1)$. This suffices to reproduce the commitment $r$, and since the height of the tree, $3$, is known and fixed, we know that the path $01$ of length $2$ specified by the right child $(2,1,1)$ leads us to the desired leaf.