Share this page!

polynya Profile picture
Twitter logo
14 Nov, 5 tweets, 2 min read
General CR is same as settlement layer - you can exit from there.

Ephemeral CR (minutes, potentially seconds in the future) is as decentralized as sequencers are. Can even run PoS consensus with many validators for max CR, at the cost of efficiency.
I imagine most ZKRs will take the middle ground, by decentralizing their sequencers and provers just enough for the ephemeral CR. Just needs CR for a few minutes till verified on settlement layer. Nothing stops a ZKR from going all out with PoS BFT CR, but this is v. inefficient.
However, on the other hand, some may choose to keep their sequencers centralized in specific cases for max efficiency & DDoS resistance. There's no real incentive for a centralized sequencer to censor - they'll just lose business to competitors.

Remember, even with a single centralized sequencer, the worst that can happen is they censor your transactions. In this case, you can still exit with your funds from the settlement layer. There are even solutions to exit if funds are in smart contracts, but awaiting info on that.
Conclusion: There's no fundamental "CR property" of ZKRs. It's a design choice that will vary between different rollups. Importantly, ZKRs only need ephemeral CR for a few minutes until verified on the settlement layer, so it can remain highly efficient while still highest CR.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with polynya

polynya Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @epolynya

polynya Profile picture
13 Nov
Understandably, the rhetoric is still entirely monolithic blockchain (L1) centric, presumably a reflection of people's bags - they don't want progress.

The real question is which projects are best specialized in these categories?

- Execution
- Settlement
- Data availability
I generally stick to talking about the specialized execution layers, i.e. rollups/validiums/volitions, but the truth is all three are interlinked and as long as people continue to have monolithic-centric biases the discussion is stifled. Let's start thinking in E, S and DA terms.
Example of why monolithic/L1-centric thinking is plain wrong. E, S and DA can be different. The correct comparisons should be E vs E, S vs S, DA vs DA; not L1 vs L1.

Read 4 tweets
polynya Profile picture
5 Nov
The magic of validity rollups: the more activity there is, cheaper it gets. Some quick estimates:

~12,000 TPS dYdX-type transactions on Ethereum possible today.
~250,000 TPS with V1 data shards (~2023).
4 million TPS with optimized data shards.
~100 million TPS by ~2030.
Yes - that's dYdX-type complex derivative trade transactions on validity rollups settling on Ethereum alone. These are v. conservative worst-case estimates not considering inevitable improvements in tech, further breakthroughs, data compression optimizations, non-Ethereum DA etc.
Circling back to dYdX - proof verification is still ~80% of the cost, so there's enormous headroom for growth and costs will plummet as activity rises. Eventually, each batch can be a million transactions & verif. cost will be negligible. We're at the very peak of the iceberg.
Read 5 tweets
polynya Profile picture
4 Nov
Spotted on StarkNet's new webpage. Volition has to be the single most underrated innovation in crypto. "L1 vs L1" debates are deemed irrelevant & pointless, when a single composable platform can give you the best of all worlds on a per-user, per-app or per-transaction level.
Imagine a volition which settles proofs on the most robust settlement layer, and DA across multiple solutions. So, let's say, for example, StarkNet verifies on Ethereum, but has Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot and others as DA options. You can choose your solution as you please.
Here's the magical bit - whichever DA option you select, it'll be 100x cheaper and more secure than using those directly! It's like having Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot parachains all on a single composable smart contract platform - but better than using any of them individually!
Read 6 tweets
polynya Profile picture
3 Nov
A common fallacy by non-sharded monolithic chain fans is "will get more decentralized & secure over time". But this is nonsense - they will either have to give up "TPS", or decentralized & secure chains will catch up to them. Moore's/Nielsen's Laws apply to the entire world.
Rollups & data shards benefit even more over time. E.g. Rollups will benefit from CPU/GPU & SSD/RAM advances, data shards will benefit from bandwidth improvements, and both will compound on top of each other. Not to mention the dramatic gains with GPU/FPGA provers.
Oh, and then there's the small matter that rollups didn't trade off decentralization & security to begin with. But I don't discuss that because I don't want to deal with the standard cop-out "but people don't care...". So, my approach is simply rollups + data shards = max "TPS".
Read 4 tweets
polynya Profile picture
1 Nov
While most rollup teams are targeting decentralized sequencers, there's a real use case to centralizing sequencing for maximum efficiency. (Nuances aside w/ provers etc.) Sequencers are powerless: they can only reorder transactions or withhold them. Stealing not possible.
But there's no incentive - if the rollup operator misbehaves they are just pushing people to competing solutions. That's why in the 18 months we have had rollups, there's not been a single case of misbehaviour AFAIK - even with billions at stake now. Be wary of new forks, though.
All competitive rollups will have an escape mechanism to the settlement layer, so you can't actually censor users from quitting your product and using a competitor. Just make it harder. So, there's no real incentive for an established rollup operator to misbehave.
Read 5 tweets
polynya Profile picture
23 Oct
Rollups are not tied to Ethereum. Rollup teams can and will deploy on robust security and/or DA layers. E.g. If Bitcoin were to add opcodes to verify STARKs, I bet we see StarkNet Bitcoin. Or if someone invents a revolutionary consensus mechanism that obsoletes PoS.
(1/4)
Like DeFi protocols, they may also deploy on more centralized and insecure security layers to preempt forks. I'd bet they would be incentivized to do so. E.g. Instead of $X00M on ephemeral liquidity mining, more pragmatic would be to pay StarkNet to deploy on Avalanche.
(2/4)
Of course, only Ethereum has an ambitious roadmap for rollups with global scale DA, and I'm not aware of any other project even attempting to build a security layer with robust economics and network effects. Could change in 5-10 yrs, of course. Niches can form elsewhere.
(3/4)
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @epolynya has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @epolynya!

Read all threads by @epolynya

:(