#How do I get started with optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups?

[intelisync]

Optimistic Rollups vs ZK-Rollups: A Quick Guide

As blockchain technology continues to revolutionize industries, the need for scalable solutions becomes increasingly urgent. Ethereum, one of the leading blockchain networks, faces significant challenges in handling high transaction volumes efficiently. Enter rollups, a game-changing layer 2 scaling solution designed to alleviate these issues.

Rollups are an innovative approach to improving blockchain scalability by processing transactions off the main chain (Layer 1) and then submitting them in batches, thus reducing congestion and costs. There are two main types of rollups: Optimistic Rollups and ZK-Rollups (Zero-Knowledge Rollups). Optimistic Rollups assume transactions are valid by default and only use fraud proofs to handle disputes, offering lower gas fees and increased throughput. However, this method introduces a slight delay in transaction finality due to the need for challenge periods.

On the other hand, ZK-Rollups leverage zero-knowledge proofs to validate transactions, providing immediate finality and enhanced security. While this approach requires significant computational resources, it ensures that transactions are inherently valid and almost impossible to tamper with. The blog delves into a detailed comparison between these two rollup types, highlighting their unique advantages, drawbacks, and ideal use cases.

Intelisync, a leader in blockchain development services, has successfully implemented rollup solutions to address scalability challenges for various clients. By leveraging these advanced technologies, Intelisync helps businesses enhance their blockchain platforms' performance and user experience. Ready to scale your blockchain application? Contact Intelisync today to explore how we can support your journey towards Learn more....

[sycriptouk]

Recently, I've seen a lot of people saying things like "Ethereum's future depends on LRC" or "Ethereum is useless without LRC", etc. Now, I think LRC's tech fundamentals are rock-solid, but here are some facts to help you better contextualize LRC among the other Ethereum scaling solutions.

There are plenty of L2s and sidechains already that scale Ethereum L1. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Let's start by looking at other zk rollup L2s like LRC.

Other zk Rollup L2s

There exist several zk (zero-knowledge) rollup L2s besides LRC (both STARK and SNARK variety; look this up if you really want to dive down the rabbit hole) like zkSync, Polygon Hermez, dYdX, zkSwap, and StarkX. Unlike LRC, zkSync and (soon) Hermez are actually full scaling systems for Ethereum, because they support fully generic smart contracts due to having built ZKEVMs (Zero-Knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machine). LRC doesn't even have plans to build a ZKEVM (which is considered very hard to do), because their value proposition is not to be able to generically scale Ethereum. They specifically are only intending to scale DEX usage (which makes sense, because that is what their core innovation, order rings, are good for).

As for usage, of all the zk rollup L2s combined, LRC has around 30% of the TVL.

Optimistic Rollup L2s

Then there are optimistic rollup L2s, which are fully EVM compatible (so much easier to make an optimistic rollup EVM compatible than to make a zk rollup EVM compatible), and are currently being used for DeFi way, way more than any zk rollup platforms (though I do believe that one day zk will emerge as the superior tech over optimistic). Arbitrum TVL is more than all zk rollup platforms combined plus all other optimistic rollup platforms combined plus all the validium and plasma L2s combined.

Once you add in optimistic rollup platforms and other L2s, Loopring has a little under 9% of all the TVL of L2s on Ethereum.

Side chains

Then we get into the scaling solutions that aren't L2s, but are instead sidechains. I'll just talk about the elephant in the room here: Polygon. Polygon has about the same TVL as all L2s combined, including Arbitrum. They also get lower fees than any L2. The downside is that they have worse security than L2s do.

Conclusion

So, in terms of TVL of all scaling solutions on Ethereum, LRC has probably 3 - 4% of the TVL at most.

Unlike Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync, and others, LRC is not EVM compatible, so it can't handle generic smart contracts, and is thus not a full scaling solution for Ethereum. You can't build any part of DeFi on Loopring except DEXes. And finally, while the fees are great, they aren't the lowest of all the scaling solutions.

LRC is great, but there are many other scaling options, of which LRC holds a fairly insignificant portion of the TVL. Many of these other solutions are also full scaling solutions that are fully EVM compatible, which LRC has no intention of being. And don't think that the facts that LRC has a low TVL compared to other scaling solutions and no ZKEVM are explained by LRC being younger than their competition. In fact, LRC launched before almost every other platform that I have mentioned.

All this being said, I imagine LRC will continue to increase their TVL share of the L2s, and the LRC token will probably continue to appreciate. It's probably a great investment. I also think that, in general, zk rollups will eventually emerge as superior to optimistic rollups, and L2s are unambiguously emerging as the superior choice over side chain scaling solutions. So, I think it's a good guess that zk rollup platforms like LRC will slowly grow to dominate the L2 pie. In general, I am bullish on LRC long-term. This post is not meant to be FUD at all.

But no, Ethereum does not in any way, shape, or form rely upon or need LRC. LRC is just one of many excellent tools playing a small part in solving the most central blockchain tech challenge of the last 4 years: how to scale Ethereum.

submitted by /u/pseudoHappyHippy [link] [comments] from Cryptocurrency News & Discussion https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/qqz7ih/recently_ive_seen_a_lot_of_people_saying_things/ via IFTTT

[practicalryangosling]

How do cryptographic certification systems such as for instance ZK Rollup improve DeFi expansion, privacy and fairness?

Extension schemes such as for instance ZK Rollup have introduced two different types of entities: a little group of powerful participants invest plenty of resources to do intensive calculations; and a large group of weak nodes are responsible for verifying transactions and ensuring that the calculation results are auditable. Original title: "Introduction | Can stylish cryptography tools help DeFi? 

The Decentralized Finance (DeFi) movement vowed to equalize the financial world and allow it to be more fair and transparent. However , if DeFi is always to accomplish this goal on a worldwide scale, a decentralized blockchain like Ethereum must expand its throughput! Which means that we need to use new cryptographic proof schemes (some people will reference these schemes collectively as "zero-knowledge proof" or "ZKP").

A cryptographic proof system like zk-STARK (which will undoubtedly be deployed on the Ethereum mainnet) is not the sole solution. Other methods include Plasma, Ethereum 2. 0, many so-called "Ethereum killers" proposals, and the most recent Optimistic Rollup proposal. In this essay, we shall explain the current challenges faced by decentralized cryptocurrencies, the paths of varied cryptographic proof systems to solve these issues, and why zk-STARK is the most suitable for solving this issue. The era of decentralization and expansion of processing capacity is an era where computer system throughput continues to improve. From bandwidth, to storage space, to the amount of pixels on a screen, every thing is continually improving. So , just why is it so hard to improve the transaction processing speed of Bitcoin and Ethereum (measured by TPS "transaction per second")? The solution is that people also want to ensure decentralization. The necessity for the blockchain to stay permission-free is that each and every user who uses an ordinary notebook can verify the integrity of the transaction history. There is a core principle here, which we call "acceptable accountability", meaning: we cannot rush to improve the processing capacity of the machine, otherwise it will degenerate in to a centralized payment system with just a few chaebols. The type of get a handle on (that is, the "current financial system"). We must break the blockchain trilemma and produce a decentralized financial system that is distinctive from conventional systems For that reason all extension schemes, including Plasma, Optimistic Rollup, and our method (based on a cryptographic proof system, frequently known as the ZK Rollup scheme), introduce two different types of entities: a little group of "strong" participants, Need to invest plenty of resources to do intensive calculations; there's also a large group of nodes, which are responsible for verifying transactions and ensuring that the calculation results generated by powerful participants are auditable. How do we scale throughput while ensuring decentralization? Then allow powerful participants calculate, and the weak participation guarantees to ensure auditability. Whether the strong participants are malicious is not important, the main thing is that the weak participants can guarantee accountability! Before diving in to the details, let's take a look at the cryptographic proof system. You have to know a little bit in regards to the cryptographic proof system. The cryptographic proof system was founded in 1980; its great value to the access-free blockchain has led to the emergence of the Cambrian of new theoretical constructions and new protocols in the blockchain field recently Big explosion. In these, we shall only concentrate on STARK, which is also a kind of proof solution that our StarkWare team is getting ready to bring to the market. Cryptographic certification systems frequently include two kinds of roles: the prover and the verifier.

* Prove: The prover wants to convince the verifier a certain computational statement is correct, such as for instance "I have processed these 10, 000 transactions, and the hash value of the resulting database is X". The verifier will provide an item of evidence with this computational statement and send it to the verifier. * Verifier: The verifier will verify the evidence-instead of naively repeating the first calculation process-if the data may be verified, the verifier will think that the prover's statement holds true. note! In a cryptographic proof system like STARK, the computational burden of the prover and verifier is asymmetric! When compared with simply performing the first calculation process, the calculation overhead of the prover is significantly larger; whilst the verifier is on the contrary, as a result of the huge overhead that the verifier has paid, the quantity of calculation that the verifier has to perform is smaller than the original calculation process A whole lot more. For instance , if 10, 000 transactions were originally required to be executed, the verifier only must pay the computational overhead of 10 transactions. Additionally , the cryptographic proof system enables you to conceal input (in the aforementioned example, the facts of the 10, 000 transactions may be concealed); this kind of cryptographic proof system is named "zero-knowledge", the abbreviation is ZK- STARK. How does the cryptographic certification system extend DeFi? So , in what ways can today's cryptographic certification systems help DeFi?

* Scalability * Privacy * Fairness, we shall come one at a time. Improve scalability with STARK Let us go back to the absolute most fundamental challenge: to steadfastly keep up inclusive accountability while expanding the throughput of Ethereum. We truly need a technology that will greatly increase throughput (by allocating the computational burden to a small number of "strong participants"), even though many "weak participants" can fully verify the computational integrity of these powerful participants. ), and it'll maybe not boost the burden on weak and small participants. Other extensions, such as for instance Plasma and Optimistic Rollup, depend on Fraud Proof, and we explained in this article why the cryptographic proof system is just a better solution (Editor's note: start to see the hyperlink at the conclusion of the text for the Chinese translation "Proof of Validity vs . Proof of Error"). Utilising the scalability of STARK (the speed of verification is an exponential of the speed of constructing a proof), we could bravely let any powerful entity become a prover, even Darth Vader & Sons (Darth Vader & Sons, the big one in Star Wars) The puppets controlled by the villain are fine. The main element here's a strong prover should attach a concise proof to any or all his operations, and all weak nodes can simply verify these proofs. For that reason through STARK (and other cryptographic proof systems), we could guarantee inclusive accountability, while providing almost unlimited throughput expansion (strictly speaking, we "can only" achieve exponential expansion).

In greater detail, the basis of ZK Rollup's scalability solution is always to allow large computing tasks (or a large number of small computing tasks) to be executed off-chain, and the off-chain computing resources are a lot more abundant; then the calculation execution process is generated The proof validity is delivered to the blockchain (accompanied by way of a promise of the new state); then a validator smart contract verifies these proofs. After verification, network participants can think that the complete calculation is valid (and at the same time do not need to trust any entity). It really is properly because we do not have any trust assumptions that people can fairly accept a valid evidence, even when it's issued by the Black Warrior. This isn't just talking-you will be able to put it to use on the mainnet in a few days! These are maybe not items that remain on paper: using StarkEx, our scalability engine, we have achieved a throughput greater than 9, 000 self-hosted transactions per second (a 2000 times increase compared to the Ethereum main network) )! Moreover, this isn't the limit: we are maybe not limited by blockchain resources, only by cloud resources. The end-to-end trading services and products will undoubtedly be launched on the mainnet soon. The initial DeversiFi decentralized exchange supported by the StarkEx engine will undoubtedly be launched in a few days. And an NFT exchange supported by StarkEx can be under intense development, that'll support the trading of in-game assets.

Enhancing privacy and improving transaction processing speed by ZKP is not an adequate condition for public chains to become popular. We also need privacy. The pioneers of people chain discovered the benefits of ZKP for privacy before they discovered the benefits of ZKP for scalability. The Zcash blockchain, launched in 2016, may be the first system that uses the ZKP scheme to supply covert transactions. Privacy can be critical to achieving an efficient market. When traders trade available in the market, they both want to be free and not to expose their unique information. Access-free blocks (and DeFi) are completely transparent in design: in order for all small nodes to verify hawaii of the blockchain without introducing any trust assumptions, all transactions will undoubtedly be made public on the chain. For that reason the process is: how exactly to obtain privacy without sacrificing the trust-free nature of DeFi? You are able to take advantage of ZKP's zero-knowledge attributes! As stated above, zero-knowledge proof we can prove a computational statement without making private input public. When this attribute is applied to the blockchain, unique information may be included in the private input, and the data won't expose this input at all. The result is that most people are happy: privacy may be protected, and at the same time anybody can verify hawaii of the blockchain without introducing trust assumptions, perfect. This isn't even bragging, you can already put it to use! A few teams have previously used ZKP on Ethereum to create privacy enhancement solutions, including Tornado. cash and AZTEC. Tornado uses the coin mixer method, while AZTEC uses the transaction pool method (which is more effective? ). We are expectant of other available choices to emerge.

Note: Privacy does not mean anti-regulation. The requirement for privacy of market participants can coexist with the necessity for regulators to see or watch and monitor the healthiness of the market. For example: a company can create a zero-knowledge proof tax payment, in place of sharing all its books with tax collectors. The privacy of organizations is protected, and regulators can trust that taxes have already been collected (examples of this is seen here). ZKP's enhancement of fairness in a reasonable market is not just meaningful in philosophy. Traders will always be far from trading venues they think are unfair. For that reason fairness is helpful to liquidity. There are many approaches to harm the fairness of the market, but most of them involve the abuse of the best of advance knowledge by system operators (such since the exchange itself). ZKP might help participants make certain that operators cannot abuse their own privileges and cannot be partial. A prominent example may be the front-running transaction. Preemptive trading implies that market makers use advance information to trade before the others know the data, which is illegal. About the impact of runaway transactions available on the market, everybody's estimates will vary, however the accepted conclusion is that the impact is huge and it is maybe not conducive to advertise efficiency. ZKP can solve the issue of preemptive transactions, because the privacy protection of traders can not only prevent other traders, even operators can not see through-this means that operators cannot profit from informed privileges and invite operators to come back to their The original location. Develop to see this kind of solution. There is still plenty of work to do! You want to allow it to be easier for developers to have these technologies, but additionally to improve the efficiency of these technologies. Moreover, you want to develop the Layer-2 solution, and we also have to think of how exactly to maybe not break the strong composability of DeFi. Gleam lot of work to be performed (if you wish to have an intuitive understanding of the perfect solution is, you can look at the principle of conditional payment. And how StarkEx enables you to achieve fast withdrawals). The scalability and privacy of the cryptographic certification system can transform DeFi from the sandbox of financial innovation to a worldwide force that will change the prevailing financial system. Cryptographic certification systems, such as for instance ZK-STARK, not only have advantages over other solutions when it comes to scalability, but additionally support better market design and create better markets with privacy and fairness.