Now that the @soneium censorship drama is making rounds in CT, let me show you a more complex example of interplay between Ethereum and the sequencer of one of its Rollup. I will show you how Ethereum provides censorship resistance to a "permissioned" rollup 🧵 Every blockchain has built-in censorship rules. For example Ethereum does not allow you to deploy smart contracts that are bigger than some defined MAX_SIZE. Rollups can define whatever rules they want. They can restrict users, restrict functionality, define their own rules /2

In one of the biggest recent news from L2 Land @taikoxyz enabled not just one but two different zk provers from @RiscZero and @SuccinctLabs ...

So why @l2beat keeps insisting that it's an Optimistic Rollup and its State Validation Pizza slice is still red ? 🧵

https://x.com/taikoxyz/status/1855990091946295477

Taiko has a multitier proof system. You can override lower-tier proof with higher tier proof. The tiers are defined as follows:
1. SGX Proofs
2. ZkProofs from Risk0
3. ZkProofs from SP1
4. 1/8 Minority Guardian MSig
5. 6/8 Majority Guardian MSig

/2 etherscan.io/address/0x394E…

The upcoming shutdown of @dYdX v3, once >1B$ rollup is IMO one of the most significant events in the Ethereum rollup space. Operators will simply stop working and users will have to remove their funds using L1 escape hatch if they haven't done that already ... This ability - to remove your funds when operators shut down - is sth you should expect from any rollup. It is as if you had your funds in a bank and suddenly your bank shut down. What do you do ? /2

Here's my more nuanced take on @Blast_L2 , have a look at the first part below if you want to have a full picture. In this thread I will explain more the L2 rebasing mechanism 🧵👇

https://x.com/bkiepuszewski/status/1764620014827528462?s=20

So you know that Blast is taking your funds from L1 escrow and tries to generate yield with them . This potentially can impact your withdrawals as explained in the previous thread. But what happens with this yield ? /2

A long thread on why, when you use external DA, you need a "DA bridge", which is why - using @sreeramkannan words - external DA looks like DAC (Data Availability) to Ethereum, and why we are complaining that projects using @CelestiaOrg are not using Blobstream bridge 🧵👇 This is what a Validity (zk) Rollup looks like. Transactions (or state diffs, doesn't matter) are posted to Ethereum and Validity proof reference them. Whole construction is very secure /2

There's this big misconception that Plasma = Fraud-Proofs + external DA (similarly to Validiums = Validity Proofs + external DA). The misconception stems from the fact that Plasma is using fraud proofs *and* does not use Ethereum as DA. But it does not work as Validiums 👇🧵 The easiest way to think about Plasma is that it is a system that allows users to permissionlessly exit their coins w/out any additional trust assumptions. So - security wise - Plasma is in the same category as Rollups /2

TPS is a very faulty metric to measure blockchain throughput. And it's going to get worse in the future. One of the potential alternatives is to measure UOPS - User Ops per second. But what are they, how they relate to AA and is it really a feasible alternative ? 🧵👇 We are used to see 100-200 individual transactions in a current block on Ethereum. Each (or most) what appears to be an individual action performed by an owner of EOA initiating the transaction /2

Data Availability is by far the most confusing term we ever came up with. Data Publishing + Data Storage are better terms that are more intuitive. DA = Data Publishing, not Data Storage. Here are few facts that you may be unaware of: 🧵👇 Block Producers need to publish blocks so that others can validate them. Sounds obvious, right ? Except that when you don't see a block content, you cannot tell if it was published or not. Maybe you don't see it because your internet connection is down /2

So you have heard about zkProofs, how cool they are and how using them Ethereum can verify computational integrity of some off-chain programs (ranging from custom apps to full-blown Layer2 zkEVMs). But how do we know what is that program that is being verified ? 🧵👇 This is an example of an on-chain zk Verifier. This one happens to be used by @worldcoin for their identity batch submitter so that instead of submitting on-chain hundreds or thousands of ids, they submit a much smaller zkProof /2 etherscan.io/address/0x03ad…

What is L2 transaction finality ? It's simply when your L2 transaction cannot be reverted - it became part of the blockchain. For rollups that submit L2 txs blocks to L1, it's when these L2 blocks finalize on L1. It's easy to check on L1 when it is, just have a look: 🧵👇 The quickest is @optimismFND etherscan.io/address/0x6887… - they are literally as fast as Ethereum with L2 transactions in almost every Ethereum block /2

Both @Starknet and @0xPolygon zkEVM are STARK-based zkRollups on Ethereum. If you are put off by moon-math explaining how they actually work but would like to build some intuition and understand some fundamental differences, here's some hints: 👇🧵 I wrote a series of TT a while back about how @starkware actually work, you can check them out:

https://twitter.com/bkiepuszewski/status/1481521079562784769?s=20

/2

Big congrats to @0xPolygonLabs (@0xPolygon) for launching Polygon zkEVM. Here are few things that you may assume about zkRollups but you will find here different and should be aware of: 🧵👇 In contrast to other zkEVMs it posts full transactions (with signatures) to L1 calldata, not just state roots. @zksync and @Starknet post only state diffs. Transactions are not compressed, expect L2 tx cost to be not the cheapest as a result /2

This is @arbitrum governance in one picture (from their documentation). Confused ? Overwhelmed ? Let me simplify /1 This is how you upgrade Arbitrum contracts on L1: Because Governance contracts are on L2, the upgrade proposal will travel via normal L2 --> L1 message passing mechanism /2

This is going to be my first (and perhaps last ? 😜) non-crypto TT on the subject I feel quite passionate about and I know some people are interested in. Read more on how I went from zero-level Spanish to understanding most and being able to converse in 3 months 🧵 🇪🇸 Muchas gracias a mis amigos and amigas que hablan español que me inspiraron a hacer esto, @nanexcool , @gbalabasquer , @Mariandipietra @nad8802. So, here are my personal tips for fast language acquisition :

1/ If you got lost in a pretty dense @_prestwich report regarding backdoor in @LayerZero_Labs but still would like to understand what the recent fuss is about, here's a hopefully easy to follow explanation:

https://twitter.com/0Bitcrab/status/1620313530305236993

2/ Suppose you have an app (UA = User Application) that wants to send x-chain message from one chain to another. Let the message be "Withdraw 1000 XYZ to Bob)

1/ Given recent interest with @circle CCTP, let's quickly compare how this corresponds to @MakerDAO Teleport and their multichain strategy

https://twitter.com/circle/status/1575207127672463361?s=20&t=GEqfqafdYuW8IzNqhU8RCw

2/ Both project's ultimately have similar goals - to make sure that their respective stablecoins ( $USDC and $DAI ), when issued on different chains, are fully fungible so it should matter where you mint them

1/ Let me add my personal 2c to the interoperability story. I have been a long advocate of non-custodial solution. This is what excites people the most about blockchain tech in the first place.

https://twitter.com/0xJim/status/1613225287344394276

2/ If you have one minute to spare, check out my rant about this from 3 years ago. Nothing really changed, in fact I am convinced even more that self-custody is the only way

Now that @zksync 2.0 is officially launched on the mainnet it is possible to do the deep dive into their message passing mechanism. There are some very interesting and cool ideas there. In part1 let's have a look at L1 -> L2 message passing 🧵👇 Let's start with the basic - to send L1 --> L2 transaction, we need to specify obviously the destination contract, the method and its arguments, some gas parameters, all the usual stuff. To do that you call requestL2Transaction() of the main zkSync Rollup contract on L1 /2

So, it seems like a while ago @arbitrum has updated its Rollup implementation on L1 in a way that, IMO, dramatically increased its decentralisation. Funny, they kind of forgot to inform public about it, let's have a quick look: 👇🧵 You may be aware that being Validator for Arbitrum is still not entirely permissionless - you need to be whitelisted. Validators submit new L2 state roots to L1 Ethereum and can challenge each other /2

Why @DefiLlama and @l2beat show significantly different numbers for TVL such as with @arbitrum ? 🧵👇 To put it simply, it's a very different TVL and we might need a better term. What @l2beat is showing is essentially "funds locked in a bridge". @arbitrum uses few contracts to escrow funds on L1. Here's one for ETH: etherscan.io/address/0x8315… /2

A long thread about Optimistic Bridges and why we think @HopProtocol falls into this category (@l2beat will change the classification). Optimistic bridges are an exciting new class of bridges with @nomadxyz_ / #Optics and @AcrossProtocol falling into this category as well 👇🧵 All these constructions are different but they have one thing in common - when message is passed from source to destination chain, it is assumed to be genuine/valid unless proven otherwise by some independent Watchers /2