@guiltygyoza is building a universe on StarkNet. Now, monolithic chain (L1) apologists or rollup deniers may shout - this is a pointless, frivolous waste of time. The point is, if you can simulate reality - the universe - on StarkNet, you can build *everything*. (1/6)
For the longest time, I had thought it would be impossible to build a decentralized reality simulation - ala Existenz/RP1. But zkRs are that magical invention that can realize this. Eventually, you can build entire game engines and reality simulators within zkR clusters. (2/6)
All you need to decentralize anything is to generate succinct ZKPs and compressed outputs, and have them verified on a security layer like Ethereum. The real heavy lifting - simulating the universe - can be done on a zkR. Won't be long before we have Vulkan API on a zkR. (3/6)
Science-fiction authors and futurists have had a dystopian twist on this concept - where centralized corporations will control the metaverse and everyone's lives within it. Well, they didn't see zkRs coming! Turns out you can decentralize *everything*! (4/6)
Back to the here and now, of course DeFi, payments, NFTs, social networks will be built on zkRs. But this is barely scratching the surface - where's the fun in that? Monolithic chains and their apologists are dinosaurs living in the past - it's the future that excites me. (5/6)
dYdX already does complex DeFi derivative trades for $0.10 - effectively zero-gas abstracted from the user - and reducing more as activity ramps up. The first smart contract rollups - Arbitrum One & Optimistic Ethereum - are early MVPs with many missing features & optimizations.
With Nitro & OVM 2.0, both are seeing significant upgrades soon (OVM 2.0 in 2 weeks). As data compression systems come online, we'll gradually see ~10x further reduction in costs. Of course, StarkNet promises even lower costs - see dYdX as evidence - and alpha releases in Nov.
With the execution layer modularized, the final piece of the puzzle of modularizing data availability. Validiums & volitions are already doing this with <$0.01 fees possible today w/ scale. Rollups leveraging Ethereum will do the same when data sharding releases.
@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)
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.
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.