Skip to content

Fix typo: miscallaneous #49

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 24, 2022
Merged

Fix typo: miscallaneous #49

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion posts/layer_3.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ The strategy is as follows. Today, each ZK rollup or validium accepts a state ro

This would be an open protocol: any ZK-rollup could join, and any batch prover could aggregate proofs from any compatible ZK-rollup, and would get compensated by the aggregator with a transaction fee. The batch handler contract would verify the proof once, and then pass off a message to each rollup with the $(S_{old}, S_{new}, D)$ triple for that rollup; the fact that the triple came from the batch handler contract would be evidence that the transition is valid.

The cost per rollup in this scheme could be close to 8000 if it's well-optimized: 5000 for a state write adding the new update, 1280 for the old and new root, and an extra 1720 for miscallaneous data juggling. Hence, it would give us the same savings. Starkware actually has something like this already, called [SHARP](https://medium.com/starkware/recursive-starks-78f8dd401025), though it is not (yet) a permissionless open protocol.
The cost per rollup in this scheme could be close to 8000 if it's well-optimized: 5000 for a state write adding the new update, 1280 for the old and new root, and an extra 1720 for miscellaneous data juggling. Hence, it would give us the same savings. Starkware actually has something like this already, called [SHARP](https://medium.com/starkware/recursive-starks-78f8dd401025), though it is not (yet) a permissionless open protocol.

One response to this style of approach might be: _but isn't this actually just another layer 3 scheme?_ Instead of `base layer <- rollup <- validium`, you have `base layer <- batch mechanism <- rollup or validium`. From some philosophical architectural standpoint, this may be true. But there is an important difference: instead of the middle layer being a complicated full EVM system, the middle layer is a simplified and highly specialized object, and so it is more likely to be secure, it is more likely to be built at all without needing yet another specialized token, and it is more likely to be governance-minimized and not change over time.

Expand Down