Opinion of: Steven Pu, co -founder of Taraxa
Layer 2 based on the roll that is in fashion today are destroying cryptography or, more precisely, the very reliable nature of cryptography, quickly eroding their decentralization of trust.
Crypto’s singularity comes from its trusted injection, driven by the underlying infrastructure mainly in layer 1. The only way of being truly without confidence is to be completely decentralized, where decisions are made dispassionately by a large and randomized set of nodes around the world, operated and owned by people who, together, have few or no connection.
This decentralization depends on three pillars: inclusion, ordering and execution. A network is as decentralized as its weakest pillar. When any of them is delivered to a single decision maker, the label “without trust” becomes a marketing trick, and the rolllups fracture the three simultaneously.
Rollups do not provide decentralized guarantees about inclusion and order and, in the case of optimistic pilots, there is also no guarantee of execution correction. Rollup L2S is absolutely a scourge to cryptography.
ROLLUP L2S is rapidly eroding confidence in cryptography
There are two wide types of L2S Rollup today: optimistic and zero knowledge (ZK). Both are dominated by networks where a single sequencer makes all decisions. Since having a single entity for this crucial task is a problem, these rolls make some weak attempts to enforce the correction, but only in terms of execution.
Optimistic Rollups depend on a “challenge period” of a week, a clock that invites chaos. Millions of transactions will relax if only a fraudulent test is attached, blocks capital and trust for days.
For ZK -rolps, they guarantee execution correction through ZK tests.
Related: Ethereum turns 10: This is how his booms and busts in the form of history
But a perfect execution test is useless when a lonely sequencer can simply reject, delay or reorder transactions for their advantage. Without public and immutable records of who tried to make transactions and when, censorship cannot be proven and, therefore, cannot be punished.
If a network cannot guarantee transparency, justice and correction for inclusion and order, what is a guarantee of execution? Since you can only execute what is included and order, the execution depends fundamentally on inclusion and order. Not having any guarantee about inclusion and execution makes guarantees of non -reliable execution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20ZFEDQDKL8
The markets are noticing this. The liquidity is divided into the bridges inheriting the weakest link assumptions of each role. The custody network resulting from multiple transgenics and emergency break switches creates a systemic risk that merchants now have a price in assets of assets. If the discount for the “sequencer risk” is further expanded, Ether’s monetary cousin will suffer.
The decentralization of L2S simply makes them L1s
A accommodation counter common to the fact that L2 are a centralized disaster is that they will be decentralized at a future date. This is an autonomous argument.
If you take an L2 and make it a network of truly decentralized sequencers, whereby the sequencers collaborate using a decentralized consensus to provide strong guarantees on inclusion, order and execution, what do you get? You end with an L1.
Anyone who argues that L2S can eventually decentralize is saying that they will become L1 at some point, filtering liquidity, rates and total blocked value (TVL) away from L1 (basically Ethereum), they are supposed to be given to the scale.
The headlines that execute the profitable batteries of a single sequence of today would hardly see any incentive to dilute their power.
The road to climb Ethereum is … climar ethhereum
Ethereum does not have to be slow and expensive. Reference can be made to many newer consensus designs in Mainnets to improve the technical functionalities of the network.
With a TVL that quickly approaches $ 100 billion, it is perfectly reasonable that Ethereum developers are more cautious by implementing fundamental changes in the central architecture of the network. However, active progress must be made to climb Ethereum in itself, not focused solely on these parasites, which are played as decentralized networks.
The key financing updates in the production, execution and consensus would reinforce the neutrality of Ethereum, preserve their income from rates and restore user’s confidence without the accumulations of bridge taxes imposed.
Let’s leave the L2S and make the Ethereum L1 climb a priority.
Opinion of: Steven Pu, co -founder of Taraxa.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The points of view, the thoughts and opinions expressed here are alone of the author and do not necessarily reflect or represent the opinions and opinions of Cointelegraph.
