BTC $78,714.23 -0.14%
ETH $2,494.21 +0.95%
BNB $754.79 +2.50%
XRP $1.42 +2.75%
SOL $103.83 +0.44%
TRX $0.3391 +1.57%
DOGE $0.0903 +1.50%
ADA $0.2293 +5.45%
BCH $257.27 -0.53%
LINK $12.67 -1.87%
HYPE $83.91 -1.69%
AAVE $130.57 -0.30%
SUI $0.8270 +2.64%
XLM $0.1918 +1.71%
ZEC $1,182.15 +2.04%
BTC $78,714.23 -0.14%
ETH $2,494.21 +0.95%
BNB $754.79 +2.50%
XRP $1.42 +2.75%
SOL $103.83 +0.44%
TRX $0.3391 +1.57%
DOGE $0.0903 +1.50%
ADA $0.2293 +5.45%
BCH $257.27 -0.53%
LINK $12.67 -1.87%
HYPE $83.91 -1.69%
AAVE $130.57 -0.30%
SUI $0.8270 +2.64%
XLM $0.1918 +1.71%
ZEC $1,182.15 +2.04%

Vitalik: The quality of the underlying proof system of L2 networks is equally important and should gradually enter the second stage as it develops

2025-05-05 14:41:51

ChainCatcher news, in response to community member Daniel Wang's proposed naming label #BattleTested for the L2 network Stage 2, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik posted on the X platform stating: "This is a good reminder: the second stage is not the only factor affecting security; the quality of the underlying proof system is equally important. This is a simplified mathematical model that shows when to enter the second stage:

Each security council member has a 10% independent 'break' chance; we consider activity failure (refusal to sign or key unavailability) and security failure (signing the wrong thing or key being hacked) as equally likely; the goal: to minimize the likelihood of protocol collapse under the above assumptions.

Stage 0 security council is 4/7, Stage 1 is 6/8; please note that these assumptions are very imperfect. In reality, council members have 'common mode failures': they may collude, or all be coerced or hacked in the same way, etc. This makes both Stage 0 and Stage 1 more insecure than shown in the model, so entering Stage 2 earlier than the model suggests is the best choice.

Additionally, note that by turning the proof system itself into multiple independent systems via multi-signature, the probability of proof system collapse can be greatly reduced (this is what I advocated in previous proposals). I suspect that all Stage 2 deployments in the past few years will be like this. Considering this, here is the chart. The X-axis is the probability of proof system collapse. The Y-axis is the probability of protocol collapse. As the quality of the proof system improves, the optimal stage shifts from Stage 0 to Stage 1, and then from Stage 1 to Stage 2. Using a proof system of Stage 0 quality for Stage 2 is the worst.

In short, @l2beat ideally should showcase proof system audits and maturity metrics (preferably proof system implementations rather than the entire aggregation, so we can reuse them) and stages."

Vitalik: The quality of the underlying proof system of L2 networks is equally important and should gradually enter the second stage as it develops

app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.