Ethereum continues to work on its complementary plan of parallel EVM but Bitcoin will soon be expecting their own Parallel VM layer 2
First, let’s understand why Ethereum can’t achieve parallel EVM.
EVM’s design has an important feature that helps maintain security and network consistency: the execution of transactions in a sequential order. This ensures smart contracts, transactions, and their execution in deterministic sequence. It also makes the state of blockchain easier to monitor and predict. It prioritizes the security of blockchains by eliminating potential vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, if there is a high volume of requests for transactions, sequential execution may cause delays and network congestion.
Can you simply add more lanes? Citing existing solutions such as so-called parallel VMs. The chains suggested scaling blockchains by introducing additional VMs for smart contracts. In essence, the work of a smart contract remains in a specific VM. The problem will be solved if all the smart contracts in this chain use an identical amount of TPS. However, if a handful of contracts such as Aave protocols and Uniswap protocols consume 90% or more block space, then running contracts on a shard will only scale the chain without benefiting the improvements that sharding brings. Current parallelization dilemma is the inability to switch lanes when adding new lanes.
Parallel EVM uses caching and cutting of data in the data layer. Solidity is the most widely used smart contract language. However, it’s limited by EVM programming model. This is like not using SQL with NVIDIA GPU. Solidity does not have expressions to support parallel architectures such as Relay Execution, and it lacks an atomicity defined for transactions.
To achieve true parallelism, blockchain architecture must be able to run transactions from a smart contract on several VMs at the same time. For a blockchain parallel model to be fully utilised, CUDA or another programming model is necessary.
BitReXe Bitcoin announces the introduction of Turing complete parallel VM Layer 2 for underlying infrastructure to support real Bitcoin applications and an exclusive programing model for parallel VMs called PREDA.
BitReXe enables Parallel Virtual Machines for Bitcoin
Parallel VMs
Illustration highlighting the differences between BitReXe vs. other initiatives which promote Parallel Virtual Machines. In the upper left-hand corner of the diagram, Ethereum follows a state model that is based on a single machine. All codes (smart contract) and data (states) are managed and replicated by every blockchain node via its Ethereum Virtual Machine. As shown in the middle of the diagram, the existing projects use Parallel EVMs where one smart contract can be deployed to a dedicated virtual machine (or multiple VMs that are part of a shard) for consensus. All smart contracts are handled by the dedicated VM.
As shown on the rightmost part of the diagram, BitReXe’s unified model of parallelization deploys all smart contracts across the entire network. States of a Smart Contract are divided and distributed among distinct VMs, ensuring that they do not overlap. Similarly, the transactions are divided and distributed across VMs for parallel and independent processing. The ideal situation is that this method allows for a linear increase in transaction capacity and throughput as the number of VMs increases.
It is important to manage dependencies efficiently between the execution logic (code), and the contract state data (data), while enabling independent VMs and avoiding synchronization. This is because the execution logic for a comprehensive transaction can require accessing multiple segments of the contract state, which are each located in different VMs following state partitioning.
PREDA
We present Parallel Relay-Execution Distributed Architecture (PREDAPREDA supports a parallel architecture: if Solidity for Ethereum is likened to programming on a single-core CPU, then BitReXe’s parallel architecture using PREDA would be similar to CUDA running on NVIDIA GPUs. PREDA is a parallel-architecture: If Solidity on Ethereum can be compared to programming on a CPU single core, PREDA’s parallel architecture is similar to CUDA in NVIDIA’s GPU.
Two key elements are introduced in the PREDA model: “Programmable Contract Scopes”The programmers can define the contract state partitioning according to their application’s access patterns, which will narrow down data range and minimize data dependencies. “Asynchronous Functional Relay”The programmers can express transaction logic that has implicit data dependencies to allow for flexible execution on multiple execution engines. PREDA, implemented in an enhanced Solidity Language, includes additional Syntax for Programmable Contract Scopes and Statements for Asynchronous Functional Relay.
Figure shows a PREDA-version of an ERC20 simplified contract. The figure illustrates the PREDA version of a simplified ERC20 contract. “@address” Keyword defines the scope for users’ balances. It is equivalent to Solidity map definition, but it specifies finely-grained states that can be partitioned by address. A set of BitReXe VMs manages the states divided by address at runtime. The same set of VMs does not maintain different states. The Transfer Function within the “@address” Invoked by the payer (i.e. addresses of users initiating transfers), ” relay” For depositing funds to the payee. This relay executed by a VM containing the payee’s address adds the funds to payee’s account.
A smart contract in PREDA can be divided into multiple scopes, each with its own set of variables and functions. In a single scope, multiple variables and functions of arbitrary type including containers may be defined. A single function can initiate multiple relays conditionally and unconditionally. Recursive initiation is possible, as well as the ability to move transaction flow across VMs. In this relay-execution technique, the state of a transaction is limited in one virtual machine to avoid race conditions. The PREDA smart contract decomposes the transfer transaction into multiple Micro-Transactions, ensuring limited state access in a single virtual machine and avoiding race conditions. “withdraw” The micro transaction and the a “deposit” Micro-transaction allows parallel execution of both types of transactions, provided that their addresses (in this case), are mapped onto different virtual machines.
BitReXe divides virtual machines in multiple groups of consensus, with each group independently executing a consensus protocol. BitReXe implements an across-group consensus to ensure correctness and consistency of asynchronous functional relays implemented as relay transactions.
Bitcoin Layer 2.
Luke claims that asset issuing paradigms on Bitcoin layers like inscriptions are constantly exploiting Bitcoin’s vulnerability. Money never sleeps and inscriptions are likely to never die. Bitcoin needs an incredibly scalable layer 2, which can alleviate this stress and prevent ledger sizes from increasing too rapidly, thereby compromising decentralization. A solution based on EVM+Bridge will not be able to accomplish such a task.
BitReXe uses Parallel VMs, PREDA and PREDA-based scaling to bitcoin. In the meantime, BitReXe adapts to Bitcoin’s security. The BTC is used as a gas fee. It shares Bitcoin’s security and offers a trusted asset settlement.
BitReXe re-uses computing power carried by Bitcoin’s network in the form of on-chain, orphan, and premature block hashes. proof-of-work To create valid layers 2 blocks without changing the Bitcoin protocol. Merge miners receive rxBTC BitReXe rewards users with a 1:1 pegged version of bitcoin. rxBTC is used to pay for gas charges on the BitReXe network. Fullnodes Lab, PREDA’s dev team, and BitReXe are about to launch a bridge between Bitcoin and BitReXe that will allow for trustless settlement of assets. This solution allows rxbtc and BTC transactions to be settled at the same moment. No longer are official addresses required for peg outs. Trust assumption can be eliminated.
Bitcoin is the ecosystem that we have highest expectations of. It can address problems Ethereum, which was Bitcoin’s original testnet, cannot.
The @Bit_ReXe team believes this problem is due to the lack of parallel EVM mechanisms that lead to a Blockchain Trilemma. It aims to resolve it directly at Bitcoin Layer 2
“If this problem can be solved on Bitcoin, TVL Benchmarking or even exceeding Ethereum by over three times would represent a major breakthrough.”
The guest blogger is BitPNova. All opinions are the author’s. own These views do not reflect the opinions of BTC Inc.
“This article is not financial advice.”
“Always do your own research before making any type of investment.”
“ItsDailyCrypto is not responsible for any activities you perform outside ItsDailyCrypto.”
Source: bitcoinmagazine.com