BTC $80,954.89 -1.10%
ETH $2,384.86 -1.13%
BNB $739.44 +0.20%
XRP $1.29 -1.88%
SOL $102.91 -1.40%
TRX $0.3297 +0.26%
DOGE $0.0789 -0.69%
ADA $0.2118 -1.76%
BCH $278.25 -2.06%
LINK $11.89 -2.41%
HYPE $77.37 -0.69%
AAVE $145.09 -2.50%
SUI $0.9633 -2.94%
XLM $0.1737 -2.00%
ZEC $1,174.19 -4.49%
AAPL $347.67 -0.10%
AMZN $248.96 -0.99%
GOOGL $322.02 -1.04%
MSFT $525.02 +1.03%
META $642.15 -0.68%
NVDA $211.55 -1.08%
TSLA $372.58 -0.81%
SNDK $1,241.45 -1.51%
INTC $86.94 +0.44%
SPCX $147.79 +0.30%
MU $885.24 +2.61%
AMD $519.34 +1.01%
BTC $80,954.89 -1.10%
ETH $2,384.86 -1.13%
BNB $739.44 +0.20%
XRP $1.29 -1.88%
SOL $102.91 -1.40%
TRX $0.3297 +0.26%
DOGE $0.0789 -0.69%
ADA $0.2118 -1.76%
BCH $278.25 -2.06%
LINK $11.89 -2.41%
HYPE $77.37 -0.69%
AAVE $145.09 -2.50%
SUI $0.9633 -2.94%
XLM $0.1737 -2.00%
ZEC $1,174.19 -4.49%
AAPL $347.67 -0.10%
AMZN $248.96 -0.99%
GOOGL $322.02 -1.04%
MSFT $525.02 +1.03%
META $642.15 -0.68%
NVDA $211.55 -1.08%
TSLA $372.58 -0.81%
SNDK $1,241.45 -1.51%
INTC $86.94 +0.44%
SPCX $147.79 +0.30%
MU $885.24 +2.61%
AMD $519.34 +1.01%

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

Упомянутые проекты
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.