polynya Profile picture
11 Dec, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Lots of takes about Solana. Here's the fundamental problem:

- It optimizes for the lowest quality transactions (spam)
- It doesn't have a fee market that prices execution granularly

Best solution: become a validium, use QoS, have mass exits for CR.

polynya.medium.com/transaction-qu…
Alternatively, implement an actual pricing system (I know there's some work happening on that) and set a transaction fee floor to $0.01 or so like Polygon PoS has done.

For negligible / 0 fees, a modular approach is the only way out.
Is it acceptable for an L1 to reject transactions it determines to be spam or DDoS attack?
Is it acceptable for a rollup/validium to do the same, assuming there's a cheap way to exit the rollup en masse to a censorship resistant layer?

• • •

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

14 Dec
Haven't listened to UCC, but seeing a lot of comments about it. Firstly, I'm delighted we have moved past the "rollups bad" phase to "rollups awesome but only on L1 bags I hold". However, the whole point of a modular architecture is the concept of L1s melt away.

1/
Rollups will always verify on the most secure, decentralized, robust, battle-tested settlement layer, backed by the soundest money and with the widest range and depth of liquidity. The cost is negligible, and the risks of having a bridge to a less secure SL isn't worth it.

2/
I believe Bitcoin would have been the best SL, but given it doesn't support rollups, Ethereum is the next best option. For a PLONK rollup doing 1,000 TPS, gas fees per transaction is only $0.00003. With 10,000 TPS it's 10x lower still etc. These are negligible numbers.

3/
Read 11 tweets
10 Dec
Common misconceptions around rollups melt away when you make a simple perspective shift: anything any L1 can do, as a rollup it can do it better.

L1 does X TPS -> Rollup does 10X TPS
L1 does X finality -> Rollup does 0.1X finality
L1 does 3 programming languages -> Rollup 10
L1 does 3 upgrades / yr -> Rollup does 12
L1 has novel fee model -> Rollup has multiple novel fee models
L1 does yearly state expiry -> Rollup monthly
3 L1s suck at interoperability and fragment liquidity -> 10 rollups have superior interop, can even share liquidity (see: dAMM)
All above for a simple reason: a rollup only needs to provide ephemeral censorship resistance & liveness for a few minutes; while an L1 needs CR, liveness & safety forever. By cooperating with settlement & DA layers, frees up a rollup to be infinitely more innovative & efficient.
Read 6 tweets
5 Dec
With today's technology, it would take over 10,000 years for a crew to travel to Proxima Centauri. In 50 years, we could have the tech to do it in less than 100 years. So, why not wait? The ye olde crew can milk a lot of attention in the short term, and be absorbed later.
This is the fate that awaits megalomaniac blockchains (aka L1s). In a couple of years for now, they will be utterly obsolete, leapfrogged >1,000x, but there's still users & devs to onboard now while the next-gen tech (rollups/DA layers) is maturing. Soon, they'll be assimilated.
So, please, feel free to use & develop for megalomaniac blockchains today, but be aware they'll be heavily crippled and pretty useless tomorrow. Vastly prefer projects that have a clear path to a modular future. The ones with rollup-deniers are NGMI - stay away from them.
Read 4 tweets
20 Nov
One of the most underappreciated benefit of rollups vs high-TPS L1s is efficiency of liveness, censorship resistance and finality. In the latter, the consensus protocols have to offer permanent CR, L, and safety. In rollups, you only need ephemeral CR, L for a few minutes.

1/8
ORs generally settle every couple of minutes, SNARK rollups like Loopring ~12 minutes, STARK rollups like dYdX ~1 hour. It could be longer if they are less active, but as activity ramps up and the tech matures, I'd expect these times to decrease rapidly, eventually few sec.

2/8
Rollups that want to maximize ephemeral CR & L, can run proof-of-stake consensus just like their MC ancestors. However, they only need to do this for a few minutes instead of forever! As a result, they can be far more efficient. Which also enables more rapid finality.

3/8
Read 9 tweets
17 Nov
Web3 is a positive sum game. Solana's technology has abysmal scalability, capable of addressing <1% of TAM long term. The notion of a single database addressing much of the global audience is ludicrous in web2, and a single ledger doing the same is no different with web3.

1/6
I welcome more centralized solutions like Solana or Polygon PoS to onboard the surplus demand in the short term here & now. However, Polygon has a much more ambitious and future-leaning roadmap than Solana with ZKRs, scaling well beyond what Solana can ever dream of.

2/6
Solana's bizdev and marketing teams have done a phenomenal job, and the audience they onboard till StarkNet, zkSync 2.0 and Polygon Hermez/Miden mature will be well earned. But this is <<1% of where web3 is headed long term. Remember, a single ZKR can outscale Solana.

3/6
Read 7 tweets
14 Nov
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.

Read 5 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

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(