Just showerthoughts as a non-expert on data availability for validiums: what if we could take StarkWare's adamantium concept and structure it into a permissionless DAC? Users can choose (& vote for) their preferred DA provider(s) or do it themselves.
Now, the voting may make it sound like DPoS, but you don't actually need to come to consensus. As long as an n number of DA providers (by vote) sign off, the validium can transition. If the validium freezes, you only need to trust your preferred DA provider or yourself.
Essentially, you have a baseline DAC that sign off state transitions - except instead of being permissioned it's voted in by governance. On top of that, you add a 1-of-N trust layer with adamantium. I could be wrong - but we're now approaching OR type trust assumptions.
Just to be clear: this is not about replacing the highly secure Ethereum DA, i.e. rollups. It's more about looking for ways improving the status quo with permissioned DACs or DA with a relatively centralized consensus mechanism.
Of course, you can also have this setup on top of a baseline consensus mechanism instead of a baseline committee. See here:
@KyleSamani@Evan_ss6@latetot Mentioned - "this is not just about Ethereum". Rollups maintain full composability across multiple DA sources - incl multiple data shards & even non-Ethereum DA (volitions). Long-term, one zkR can/will outscale Solana by up to ~10x with full composability and better UX, (1/4)
@KyleSamani@Evan_ss6@latetot And necessarily, zkRs have superior composability and liquidity (de)fragmentation properties, with initiatives like dAMM & Pooling, than between L1s or sharded networks (which Ethereum is no longer - they're only for data to feed rollups). It's better UX across the board. (2/4)
@KyleSamani@Evan_ss6@latetot The right comparison is StarkNet vs Solana, not Ethereum vs Solana. One StarkNet instance can outscale Solana, and you can have multiple StarkNet "shards" which can be very tightly coupled, sharing liquidity and other interoperability, and with SHARP share provers. (3/4)
This is the "cost of validator censorship", not decentralization. Validators merely provide a service to the network, i.e. ordering and signing transactions - it's non-validating full nodes that enforce consensus rules. Covered here: polynya.medium.com/security-layer…
- Ease of running full nodes. If users must trust a validator set, then it's not a trustless network - you're just another bank with a new set of bankers, as Gavin Wood put it.
- A wide token distribution with high monetary premium to increase difficulty of validator censorship.
I'd also add that Solana and monolithic chains are highly inefficient, requiring thousands of nodes for minimal security. Long term, validiums will be a fraction of the cost. A succinct ZKP can verify millions of transactions, while DA layers can have 1-of-N security models.
This is very myopic - in the long term all of this is false.
- Rollups & volitions can and will be fully decentralized and inherit the security and decentralization properties of whatever is the most secure and decentralized security layer. Hermez is already there.
- Anything any centralized monolithic chain can do, a volition can necessarily do orders of magnitude better, in every way.
- Volitions remain fully composable across multiple data availability sources.
- zkRs & volitions let you withdraw immediately, ORs have bridges.
(2/5)
- zkRs/volitions have significantly superior liquidity sharing properties than monolithic chains. E.g. liquidity is fractured between Avalanche and Ethereum, or C-chain and D-chain. However, with initiatives like dAMM, you can share liquidity between StarkNet and Loopring.