Compilation of the original text: Lynch, Chain Catcher
Original title: "How to scale Ethereum? — A comprehensive analysis of all the actual Layer 2 environment》
Compilation of the original text: Lynch, Chain Catcher
One of the most controversial topics in the blockchain space is undoubtedly scalability.
Specifically, as Ethereum has grown in popularity, transaction requests in blocks have increased, and therefore transaction costs have increased accordingly. Since the Ethereum mainnet processes about 15 transactions per second, increasing throughput is necessary. To ease the burden on Ethereum nodes, many L2 solutions have emerged, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
To increase the speed of the Ethereum network in its actual single-chain configuration, a variety of alternative scaling strategies are applied: they all aim to increase scalability by offloading transaction processing on the main Ethereum blockchain, but in different ways. There are different.
first level title
Existing major expansion plans
In fact, there are already a variety of novel consensus algorithms and techniques, such as sharding, that can solve the scalability problem directly at the base layer.
Sharded chains, which represent only a small fraction of the current blockchain, have gained a lot of attention in recent months. Especially the development of blockchain games, such as the launch of Harmony One-based DeFi Kingdoms and Near Protocol’s EVM-compatible chain Aurora. The main driver for the development of these ecosystems is the real value of the applications deployed in them, namely the improved user experience brought about by faster block times and lower gas fees.
Ethereum 2.0 may belong to the sharding family.
In addition, there are sidechains and solutions built on top of e.g. rollup: this technology inherits all the security and consensus protocols from the main layer and has considerable advantages over most other scaling technologies. In this respect, these solutions can be classified as “non-custodial” sidechains.
Essentially, a rollup collects a large number of transactions, computes them off-chain, and broadcasts them as a single on-chain transaction.
Rollups currently active on the Ethereum mainnet are divided into two types:
Zk Rollup (Zk stands for Zero Knowledge), backed by proofs of validity
secondary title
Zero Knowledge Proof ZKP
From its pure definition,Zero Knowledge Proof (ZKP)is a set of tools that allows information to be verified without revealing underlying assumptions.
The term "zero-knowledge" derives from the idea of providing no ("zero") information about a particular fact: this is achieved by a set of cryptographic techniques that enable a "prover" to , to indicate to the "verifier" in a data way that a computational assertion is valid.
ZKP has been introduced into the blockchain field. There are two types of zero-knowledge proofs: interactive and non-interactive.
Interactive ZKPs require the prover to perform a series of activities or operations in order to convince the verifier that they possess certain knowledge. Most of the activities required in an interactive ZKP incorporate mathematical probability ideas.
A non-interactive ZKP does not require interaction between the prover and verifier, otherwise the verification might happen later. In this case, such ZKPs require additional computers or software.
All ZKPs (interactive or not) must satisfy three prerequisites:
Integrity: If the statement is true, the verifier can verify all necessary inputs held by the prover.
Validity: The assertion cannot be refuted, and verification does not hold when the prover does not provide the necessary input.
secondary title
ZKRollup
Zk Rollup submits all transaction data to the main chain and uses Zk-Snark (Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Intellectual Argument) to verify transactions.
Vitalik Buterin proposed this encryption tool in 2018.
The acronym SNARK stands for Succinct, Non-Interactive Argumentation of Knowledge:
"Succinct" means that the proof is shorter than the underlying data.
The proof of knowledge shows that a prover cannot construct a verified proof without appropriate "witnesses" or evidence to prove that the information they provide is true.
Once these verifications are complete and published to the main chain, all transactions contained within are declared final. Because of the use of cryptographic activity, the processing power required for L2 nodes to build proofs is much higher and faster.
secondary title
Optimistic rollup
The basic assumption of Optimistic rollup is that all processed transactions are valid. In fact, the name comes from the optimistic state of the node chain.
Whenever a transaction is found to be invalid, nodes can challenge the entire batch of transactions found to be incorrect by providing evidence of fraud: a batch of transactions will be re-run on the main chain by an underlying system (optimistic virtual machine, OVM) that supports optimistic rollup.
Overall, OVM allows transactions on L2 to complete even if they have been rejected by L1 as invalid: moreover, if a transaction is deemed invalid, the L2 chain is reset to the state that existed before the fraudulent transaction. All subsequent transactions are in a useless state due to the fraudulent transaction.
Since optimistic's approach is based on the premise that the submitted transaction is always true until proven different, it is considered "trust-based" in a way.
secondary title
Validium
Validium operates similarly to ZK rollup, except that the data is kept off-chain. Because transaction data is not published on the blockchain, it is necessary to employ an additional trust assumption that users must trust the operator so that the data can be accessed when needed.
Validium’s off-chain data storage has many benefits, with faster transactions and improved user privacy since transactions are not accessible to the public.
However, since the data is kept off-chain, users will not be able to see their available amount in the smart contract at any time.
Therefore, users must obtain data from relayers in order to hold their funds, and they must trust relayers.
To solve this problem, solutions like StarkWare provide a Data Availability Committee (DAC) that stores all off-chain data and becomes publicly accessible in an emergency, reducing users' reliance on relayers: due to its Still using zkp, so there is no danger of broadcasting incorrect state; all the user must now trust is the timeliness of the information.
The Validium solution is newer, built on top of ZKR, and will gain momentum if the validation suite of scaling solutions becomes more popular.
secondary title
Plasma
Within the Plasma family, several blockchains that are essentially replicas of Ethereum can be found, connected to Ethereum via a trust-minimized bridge architecture. Each Plasma chain can employ its own transaction verification process, but the Ethereum blockchain still has authority over the authenticity of the final transaction.
Plasma does not require users to have absolute trust in the operator, and even in cases of dishonest or obstructive operations, users always have the opportunity to recover their funds. While the launch of Plasma has generated a lot of interest in the Ethereum community, it has also created many challenges: new data availability cyberattacks, requiring users to monitor transactions to detect malicious activity, and in the event of a large number of users attempting to exit the Plasma chain at the same time Concerns about data capacity on the main chain have slowed the adoption of Plasma-based systems.
secondary title
technology comparison
Optimistic rollups have seen the most attention and adoption to date, thanks to its nature of enabling developers to “copy and paste” their Ethereum applications to the L2 platform.
Leading Ethereum mainnet applications such as Uniswap and Synthetix have begun deploying their applications using Optimistic rollup solutions based on probabilistic rollup solutions. Likewise, ZK rollups and Validium solutions, while currently having very limited support for generic smart contracts, are still being actively deployed.
In general,
In general,The development of these initiatives is highly dependent on what they can provide. The future of zero-knowledge proof EVM compatibility offers good prospects for the development of a portfolio of L2 solutions based on proof-of-validity proofs.
With Matter Labs and StarkWare pioneering the choice of data availability to use the accessibility of these proofs, it may surpass the popularity of optimistic rollup. The security afforded by zero-knowledge proofs, and the difficulty for relayers to post malicious activity, make the future of L2 systems adopting their power look brighter.
As of February 20, the TVL of the entire L2 ecosystem is about $6 billion.
in conclusion
in conclusion
It is expected that the use of rollup will be the most common scaling method in the future. Many of these were recently deployed for the first time, an important milestone. Considering that the release of Ethereum 2.0 is still a long time away, rollups may exist for a long time.
Composability is a key element of Ethereum that makes it easy for anyone on the network to build new use cases on top of and around existing assets.
If you are a user of the Ethereum network, this actually gives you a lot of freedom: you can conduct relatively complex transactions through some user-friendly activities under the same security framework and on the same chain.
While the L2 solution clearly improves the user experience by reducing gas fees, it also provides the option of a separate execution environment.
Recently, application developers have become hesitant to choose which platform to deploy on, as they have been waiting to see which L2 solution is more popular.
Integration between one or more L2s will be a key to future development. Not only does it have an impact on the network effects of the entire Ethereum ecosystem, but it also has a huge impact on the broader smart contract platform environment.
