We do a little learning
We do a little learning
Subscribe to 0xhubman.eth
Subscribe to 0xhubman.eth
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
0xhubman.ethAccount Abstraction - Part 2
Welcome back to part 2 of the Account Abstraction (AA)! Last post we covered the concept of AA, the benefits of AA, and the infrastructure needed to utilize SCAs in the manner proposed by ERC-4337. This week we'll take a look under the hood and discuss how ERC-4337's components actually interact with each other to make AA a reality. You'll remember that every transaction that occurs on Ethereum currently requires an EOA to initiate the transaction (by signing the transaction with a private ke...
0xhubman.ethStablecoins
For this post, we'll be diving into one of the crypto industry's most popular use cases - stablecoins. As of November 2023, USDT and USDC, the two biggest stablecoins by market cap, have a combined market cap of ~$110 billion within the crypto industry's entire $1.48 trillion market cap. However, this rise in popularity of stablecoins has not come without its controversies. If you've spent any amount of time following or participating in the crypto industry, you've no doubt seen the barrage o...
0xhubman.ethNostr
Tired of the Twitter/X drama? Don't know what the heck Mastodon is or how to use it? Do you like ostriches? Well then there is a protocol for you! In this post, we'll actually be veering off the blockchain-specific beaten path and delving into an exciting protocol that can best be described as crypto-adjacent - the Nostr protocol! Nostr (short for Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays) is an exciting protocol that aims to be a fully fleshed out decentralized social network and so much m...
0xhubman.ethAccount Abstraction - Part 2
Welcome back to part 2 of the Account Abstraction (AA)! Last post we covered the concept of AA, the benefits of AA, and the infrastructure needed to utilize SCAs in the manner proposed by ERC-4337. This week we'll take a look under the hood and discuss how ERC-4337's components actually interact with each other to make AA a reality. You'll remember that every transaction that occurs on Ethereum currently requires an EOA to initiate the transaction (by signing the transaction with a private ke...
0xhubman.ethStablecoins
For this post, we'll be diving into one of the crypto industry's most popular use cases - stablecoins. As of November 2023, USDT and USDC, the two biggest stablecoins by market cap, have a combined market cap of ~$110 billion within the crypto industry's entire $1.48 trillion market cap. However, this rise in popularity of stablecoins has not come without its controversies. If you've spent any amount of time following or participating in the crypto industry, you've no doubt seen the barrage o...
0xhubman.ethNostr
Tired of the Twitter/X drama? Don't know what the heck Mastodon is or how to use it? Do you like ostriches? Well then there is a protocol for you! In this post, we'll actually be veering off the blockchain-specific beaten path and delving into an exciting protocol that can best be described as crypto-adjacent - the Nostr protocol! Nostr (short for Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays) is an exciting protocol that aims to be a fully fleshed out decentralized social network and so much m...
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
In this post, we'll be exploring a foundational concept of the Ethereum ecosystem: the differences between Optimistic Rollups and ZK-Rollups. Rollups are a layer 2 (L2) scaling solution that has been embraced by the ETH heads to help scale the Ethereum network. Rollups aren't the only scaling solution in town but they are by far the most popular amongst developers and adopted by end users. Popular examples of Optimistic Rollups include Optimism, Base, and Arbitrum. Popular examples of ZK-Rollups include zkSync, Starknet, and Polygon zkEVM.
Before diving into the differences between Optimistic Rollups and ZK-Rollups, let's examine the similarities they share to help conceptualize them:
Both help increase the transaction throughput of Ethereum mainnet
Both have cheaper gas costs than Ethereum mainnet through the use of batching transaction when posting them back to Ethereum mainnet
Both keep transaction data on-chain (i.e., on Ethereum mainnet), as opposed to off-chain via a data availability solution or some other mechanism
Now that we know how these two types of rollups are similar, let's dive into the main difference between them. The main difference hinges of how these rollups approach data validation. In other words, how rollups validate the transactions that took place on L2 and post them back to Ethereum mainnet. For data validation, Optimistic Rollups utilize Fraud Proofs while ZK-Rollups utilize Validity Proofs.
When batching transaction and posting them back to Ethereum mainnet, Optimistic Rollups assume all batches are valid (i.e., they are optimistic everyone followed the rules and are not malicious) and put the burden on Verifiers to prove something is invalid via a Fraud Proof
Every time a batch is submitted, there is a dispute period where any Verifier can submit a Fraud Proof to invalidate a batch. If a batch is proven to be invalid, whoever submitted the invalid batch (i.e., the sequencer) has their staked ETH slashed, or confiscated, and given to the Verifier who submitter the Fraud Proof as a reward
Verifiers must also deposit some ETH with their submitted Fraud Proofs to avoid malicious Verifiers spamming Fraud Proofs
Due to this dispute period, withdrawal times from Optimistic Rollups back to Ethereum mainnet can take anywhere between 1-2 weeks
Additionally, due to the architecture of this validation process, Optimistic Rollups are much easier to build on top of and port over existing smart contracts from Ethereum mainnet
Optimistic Rollups were first to market and have seen widespread adoption; however, there is a ceiling on how much throughput these solutions can achieve using the Optimistic method compared to ZK-Rollups.
When batching transactions and posting them back to Ethereum mainnet, ZK-Rollups provide immediate proof that submitted batches are valid via Validity Proofs
Validity Proofs utilize ZK-SNARKS, a mathematically complex cryptographic proof that verifies all transactions in the submitted batch
Due to immediately providing proof that a batch is valid, withdrawal times from ZK-Rollups to Ethereum mainnet happen relatively quickly (typically under 24 hours)
Due to the complex architecture of this validation process, ZK-Rollups are much more difficult to build on top of and usually are preferred for single-use applications (such as payments or NFT minting) instead of general purpose. However, with the launches of zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM, these specific L2s provide an EVM-compatible environment for developers to build on top of, while also benefiting from the security of Validity Proofs.
Vitalik himself has stated in the long-run, ZK-Rollups (specifically zkEVM implementations) are the winners in the Ethereum scaling wars.
Below are a few additional resources that do a great job of breaking down these complex topics as well.
Video - ZK Rollups vs Optimistic Rollups
Video - ZK Rollups and Optimistic Rollups Competing to Scale Ethereum
Until next time!
In this post, we'll be exploring a foundational concept of the Ethereum ecosystem: the differences between Optimistic Rollups and ZK-Rollups. Rollups are a layer 2 (L2) scaling solution that has been embraced by the ETH heads to help scale the Ethereum network. Rollups aren't the only scaling solution in town but they are by far the most popular amongst developers and adopted by end users. Popular examples of Optimistic Rollups include Optimism, Base, and Arbitrum. Popular examples of ZK-Rollups include zkSync, Starknet, and Polygon zkEVM.
Before diving into the differences between Optimistic Rollups and ZK-Rollups, let's examine the similarities they share to help conceptualize them:
Both help increase the transaction throughput of Ethereum mainnet
Both have cheaper gas costs than Ethereum mainnet through the use of batching transaction when posting them back to Ethereum mainnet
Both keep transaction data on-chain (i.e., on Ethereum mainnet), as opposed to off-chain via a data availability solution or some other mechanism
Now that we know how these two types of rollups are similar, let's dive into the main difference between them. The main difference hinges of how these rollups approach data validation. In other words, how rollups validate the transactions that took place on L2 and post them back to Ethereum mainnet. For data validation, Optimistic Rollups utilize Fraud Proofs while ZK-Rollups utilize Validity Proofs.
When batching transaction and posting them back to Ethereum mainnet, Optimistic Rollups assume all batches are valid (i.e., they are optimistic everyone followed the rules and are not malicious) and put the burden on Verifiers to prove something is invalid via a Fraud Proof
Every time a batch is submitted, there is a dispute period where any Verifier can submit a Fraud Proof to invalidate a batch. If a batch is proven to be invalid, whoever submitted the invalid batch (i.e., the sequencer) has their staked ETH slashed, or confiscated, and given to the Verifier who submitter the Fraud Proof as a reward
Verifiers must also deposit some ETH with their submitted Fraud Proofs to avoid malicious Verifiers spamming Fraud Proofs
Due to this dispute period, withdrawal times from Optimistic Rollups back to Ethereum mainnet can take anywhere between 1-2 weeks
Additionally, due to the architecture of this validation process, Optimistic Rollups are much easier to build on top of and port over existing smart contracts from Ethereum mainnet
Optimistic Rollups were first to market and have seen widespread adoption; however, there is a ceiling on how much throughput these solutions can achieve using the Optimistic method compared to ZK-Rollups.
When batching transactions and posting them back to Ethereum mainnet, ZK-Rollups provide immediate proof that submitted batches are valid via Validity Proofs
Validity Proofs utilize ZK-SNARKS, a mathematically complex cryptographic proof that verifies all transactions in the submitted batch
Due to immediately providing proof that a batch is valid, withdrawal times from ZK-Rollups to Ethereum mainnet happen relatively quickly (typically under 24 hours)
Due to the complex architecture of this validation process, ZK-Rollups are much more difficult to build on top of and usually are preferred for single-use applications (such as payments or NFT minting) instead of general purpose. However, with the launches of zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM, these specific L2s provide an EVM-compatible environment for developers to build on top of, while also benefiting from the security of Validity Proofs.
Vitalik himself has stated in the long-run, ZK-Rollups (specifically zkEVM implementations) are the winners in the Ethereum scaling wars.
Below are a few additional resources that do a great job of breaking down these complex topics as well.
Video - ZK Rollups vs Optimistic Rollups
Video - ZK Rollups and Optimistic Rollups Competing to Scale Ethereum
Until next time!
No activity yet