Many people said that nobody could define L2 during Bitcoin Asia. We have a standard definition and yet most people ignore it. Marketing, eh.
“Bitcoin L2s” The hottest item on the streets. The jargon is being used to divert users’ attention from the trust issues and shill Bitcoin Series 2.
Why is there so much sudden enthusiasm? Around a month ago, some groups figured out how they could use Bitcoin to provide data for rollups. Other teams are working to improve trust assumptions relating to bridges. Researchers have made significant progress in their research, and some projects predict that rollup-like Blockchains will be available by 2025.
2025? What if some projects are on the mainnet already?
The teams have used this energy to prematurely promote the modular theory for Bitcoin scaling. Many projects are starting with bridges on non-Bitcoin blockchains and marketing themselves as Bitcoin L2s. Infrastructure providers are announcing that Bitcoin has returned.
However, these solutions are not scalable to Bitcoin. These are centralized, independent sidechains.
They say layers. Layers of assumptions about trust?
Definitions
Many of them are adopting the modular theory for Bitcoin scaling. The basic idea is that every aspect of the transactions lifecycle could be a separate entity. own Specialized system The independent operators can control the data, transactions and execution. Bitcoin will form the basis of the entire system.
When you dig deeper, it’s not bad. Its current implementation of Bitcoin could be a little worse.
New projects often claim to be something that they are not “rollups”. The rollups will use Bitcoin to make data available, post the latest root state, as well as enough transactions for the blockchain to be recalculated from the genesis to Bitcoin. They’ll need to have both if they wish to increase the transactional throughput of Bitcoin. trust-minimizedA bridge contract allows users to deposit money on rollup and mint it.
You can see by visiting a couple of documentation websites that Bitcoin is not being used for the data accessibility. The performance of the project is what they are looking for. They want to be “validiums” The following are some examples of how to use “optimiums”.
They are very similar to rollups. These are blockchains with a similar bridge contract to the parent chain but different DA systems. The performance is improved, costs are reduced, but there may be some tradeoffs in terms of security.
The L1 contract is responsible for validating the design in the Validium. proof Settlement is associated with the specific state transition. Validium bridge contracts can process withdrawals from the chain for users after a state transition is completed. This includes unilateral exits by users if state data are available. The Optimium bridge contract is similar to Optimiums, except that it relies on fraud proof Mechanism instead of valid proofs
No production implementations on Bitcoin use a verification mechanism for SNARKs, or to prove fraud.
The verification of everything is carried out on an entirely different layer 1 or 2. own A network that allows sidechains!
These chains all fork an Ethereum L2 software development kit. Either they’re settling for Ethereum, or a centralized geth fork that was scraped up.
Then there is no connection to Bitcoin. It may settle on Ethereum and use the hottest DA-layer, as well as a killer execution layer.
Bitcoin is not the same thing.
Sidechains are a good idea.
These new Bitcoin L2s simply have sidechains. What I mean is that all the new Bitcoin L2s are just modular sidechains. “modular sidechain”They run a different blockchain from their main blockchain to improve performance. By using a second DA-layer for better performance, they also compromise on security.
What is the bridge between Bitcoin and theirs? Run by multiple-signature.
The general assumptions that users make about trust are:
- They’re hoping that the multi-signature Bitcoin bridge won’t snare them.
- The hope is that the centralized sequencing will execute and include their transactions
- Trust alternative DA layers to make data readily available
- Hope centralized challengers can challenge state transitions that are malicious OR the centralized prover may post them to the contract L1.
- Finality: Trust that the sidechain parent chain will validate any state transitions.
- Do not trust an admin key upgrade Chain and steal users funds
It’s fine to have a Bitcoin sidechain that is modular, as long as users are aware they will be using their BTC on a completely centralised chain and bridge. This approach is taken by a couple of projects, which are open and honest. I have said that this method has some merits from a marketing perspective.
It is a problem that most teams try to abstract security and make their designs look like they are similar to other modular structures in Ethereum or any other ecosystem.
Hope is not lost
Some days it might feel like that, but there’s a lot of cool R&D going on. Some days it might feel like that, but there’s a lot of cool R&D work Improved sidechain design is a hot topic.
Team Members like Citrea You can also find out more about the following: Alpen Labs We are working on developing rollups for Bitcoin. There are many great work BitVM and its community are driving the initiative. ZeroSync Team on developing a SNARK Verifier and improving the two-way peg design. This work It also inspired a few bridge-building proposals in various sidechain and rollup projects.
It’s not a case of throwing out the good along with the bad. There is still hope. The nonsense we’ve seen in other eco-systems, such as convoluted scaling propositions, token incentives, and so on, is not entirely hopeless. “progressive decentralization” roadmaps?
Bitcoin will be repaid a 100-fold.
So, yeah. They aren’t.
Users shouldn’t be lied to.
“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