Optimistic Cumulative: Events and Future of Ethereum Scaling

We have heard a lot aboutCumul ZKA discussion of how generous agreements are generally viewed in the future. However, based on our actual experience of open and secure EVM compatible L2 chain and L2 chain with hundreds of dapps, hundreds of thousands of users and millions of businesses, we disagree. . .

We are building Arbitrum based on our expectations for collaboration, because we believe that cumulative competition is the best way to meet the real security needs of users. Trust EVM on the L2 network. We opted for the best perspective and not for the ZK cumulation.Fundamental scalability and cost-effectiveness from best reliability; Even if we re-select in this case, we will still choose the bullish rollup. Read on to understand why.

another one! How long is this sentence?

Yes, this article is very long and quite important. What people expect from their channel of choice is simple, but we need to explain the technology needed to deliver these benefits. We want the tech community to understand our point of view. If you don't want to read the entire article (I get it!), Here's a quick summary:

We need a network blockchain that reliably provides security, guarantees success, visibility, and rapid shutdown. They want these chains to be cost effective and compatible with existing equipment.

We have carefully considered the outlook by comparing these products to the ZK rollup.

Optimistic Rullup can provide those products that users want at a low price because ZK Proof setup comes at a very low cost.

Because the cost of obtaining a ZK certificate is very high, any participation in the ZK protocol will require a large amount of hardware and / or functionality, which leads to many bases in the ZK rollup network in practice.

The benefits claimed by ZK Rollup also apply to the approved Rollup or at the cost of significant safety or ease of use.

Optimistic Rollup is a huge win in operating costs because it is cheaper to run numbers than complex crypto data.

let's start from zero

Let's start with Ethereum. Ethereum users need to engage in smart contracts by submitting smart contracts or setting up businesses. Ethereum changes can be seen in several ways. , an exchange is not just about blocking data, but asking for a smart contract to do something like collect data, modify certain assets, etc.

When the exchange took place on Ethereum, two important things happened. First, the market was crowded and Ethereum came to the agreement of the exchange decision, and second, Ethereum completed these changes and counted the benefits of the update state.

What is the best rollup and ZK rollup have in common?

It is expensive for any Ethereum node to do all the exchange (this is due to the high integration costs and high transaction costs), and the rollup can reduce this load as a kind of solution to problems that can reduce this load. Thanks to this system,business successAlthough not complete on Ethereumat layer 2(L2), i.e. in a cumulative network.

Tab sis tos...The rollup must be protected by Ethereum.. In other words, the rollup requires Ethereum to ensure the exact execution of the exchange in any way, even if the change occurs in the L2 region. So what does Ethereum agree on and draw the status of the competition?

In short, the answer is:to prove(proof). Proof Roller for Ethereum uses special proofs that allow Ethereum to verify the truth without completing the transaction.

The difference between bullish rollup and ZK rollup

The proof is astonishing.Allows Ethereum to identify the situation where the change did not take place. You might want to know what these credentials look like and how they are used in practice. Here, the different rollups are different.

Cumul Siv ZKproof of validity(Proof of Usability): ZK Rollups relies on parties to provide crypto information that can prove that the advertiser knows the usability of blockchain ends in single state. This requires the witness to know how to create a certificate and execute this chain to generate the certificate through complex cryptographic work.The proof is based on L1 contracts.. Acceptance of ZK stacking is real, and the cost of usability is cheap enough to be achieved through the Ethereum exchange.

The best expectations use a variety of guarantees.proof of fraud(Evidence of fraud). As its name suggests, the Optimistic Rollups network is “optimistic”. This is because Optimistic Rollups does not publish evidence when it announces new features for Ethereum. In the Optimistic Rollups network, anyone (node) can declare a Rollup block with a description of the actual event after completing a particular transaction. A good solution resolves the differences and ensures that the parties win the race. Since these parties (nodes) are encouraged to post only valid requests and not to chat with them,Under normal circumstances, each node simply performs all the transactions and does not require calling the authentication code.. All these processes are governed by the L1 contract.

So which type of rollup is the best?The rest of this article compares ZK rollup to bullish rollup in several dimensions and explains why.We believe the future comes from optimism, and bullish stacks like Arbitrum are inherently scalable.

Cumulus optimists vs Cumulus ZK: Nqi

Perhaps the most important difference between best performance and ZK rollup isthe price.

An agreed stacking network only needs nodes to be contracted. For example, if a contract is extended, the nodes in the network are extended.

A ZK rollup, on the other hand, requires the creation of complex cryptographic proofs and requires hundreds or thousands of valuable elliptical curves to include additional functionality in the certificate.In the ZK rollup, each order in each contract constitutes this value.. Because the ZK update rollup requires hardware documentation for each command instead of the command.This is a minus at a reasonable price., and this is a major drawback.

Proponents of ZK cumulation argue that sometimes the solution is only one side to create "evidence", while the ideal must have multiple bases. However, if you use a larger blockchain, you will have more nodes no matter what proof you use. A true blockchain requires multiple nodes to perform various activities, such as making non-mutant calls, retrieving status logs, viewing data exchange to users, and providing data preferences. was able to refund to L1 (key chain). Security relies on the reliability of the nodes to complete the operation and perform the necessary actions to track the actual state of the blockchain.

On the other hand, building an expensive elliptical curve, as evidenced by the ZK cumulation, is a huge added value. Proof The ZK rollup of the instrument requires special equipment or a very large scale or both. It is very expensive.

Summary: An expectation for the best possible value in the results.

Optimistic cumulative vs ZK cumulative: EVM compatibility

An important consideration to take into account when developing Arbitrum is the relationship with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).Arbitrum has been completed with EVM.; It has the same RPC interface and accepts the same bytecode as EVM. it meansIn fact, any number written on Ethereum can be used directly on Arbitrum..

We've been working on open EVM compatible chains (including testnet) for over a year now and have learned how difficult it can be to become a true EVM. The first 95% relationship is not difficult to achieve, but it is not enough and it will take a long time to improve and demand products that are not accepted.

Regarding EVM compatibility, the ZK Rollups system works very well. Some ZK rollups think EVM compatibility is a consistent tool and encourage users to learn to use custom language.Not all ZK stacking systems are EVM compatible.Of course, that shouldn't be a problem for developers or users who don't care about this relationship.

We can't say that EVM compatibility is objectively the best in the new world. CornConsidering the number of developers, numbers, and developers who have used EVM before, I think there are a lot of advantages to EVM.. Consider a project submitted by Ethereum tailored for a Rollup Network. Having to rewrite numbers in a new language, do new security research, and manage multiple databases is very difficult and can lead to mistakes. However, even for new non-mathematical tasks, the EVM relationship is advantageous because it allows these tasks to use existing tasks, tools, and resources around the EVM.

Some ZK rollup projects run on a similar EVM implementation.This statement is unclear, but I'm not sure if there are any rules for users to perform an EVM contract on the ZK rollup never released. The large ZK stacking systems available today have significant EVM incompatibilities. For example, the ZK update rollup that claims to be compatible with EVM does not support the ADDMOD, SMOD, MULMOD, EXP, SELFDESTRUCT, and CREATE2 opcodes, decides to remove support for XOR, AND, and OR, and does not support support industry standards. It does not support precompilation and may limit the number of contract calls in an exchange. Additionally, the ZK model appears to have significant EVM compatibility, and best of all, ZK's EVM compatibility does not support all integrations as well as optimism.

It should be noted that there are currently several examples of specialized applications of ZK rollup systems such as Zcash, ZKSync 1.0, and Loopring. In fact, some of these systems work very well. The main difference is that they are optimized and optimized for special applications suitable for using the ZK rollup.Currently, there is no general purpose compiler., to allow users to switch from EVM rollup to ZK rollup in the same way. Although some groups have requested to work on this topic, there is currently no civil law or proof of value available for ZK-EVM regulatory agreements. As we know and all the information is available to the public, I think it will be very expensive.

Key Points: Only the best expectations support the entire EVM relationship at low cost.

Optimistic Rollup vs ZK Rollup: Visibility without confidence thanks to thiab compression

One of the main features we chose when designing Arbitrum wassee disbelief(Visual impairment). Simply put, invisible visibility means anyone can view or receive blockchain content without the help of a central participant. Importantly, this means that not everyone will be able to see photos of the state temporarily, but it also means that everyone will be able to see the whole history of the blockchain, for example how it got to its current state. The pragmatic blockchain allows anyone to run a single node, support non-mutant calls, store event history, and view all transactions without relying on internal storage resources. Visibility without confidence makes it possible.

Be honest,Some ZK rollup systems use shortcuts on views and try to avoid the fact that they don't have full blockchain functionality.. When you hear the word "compression" check it out: do they know they encode channel content better (this is what Arbitrum does and will work better in the Nitro version)? Or did you say that some of the data on the blockchain will not be shared at all unless the provider provides important data after sharing it?

ZK credentials actually only prove key strings that the "witness" knows about, but the "evidence" itself doesn't tell you what those strings are, however. has enough data to identify "evidence". Enough data to build on the history of blockchain.

For example, suppose Alice sends an exchange that pays Bob 1 ETH, then there will soon be another exchange where Bob sends the payment to Charlie 1 ETH. Next, we need to look at the evidence. Alice has 1 ETH less than before, Bob's balance has not changed and Charlie has 1 ETH more than before.

But what? Did Alice pay Bob? Is Bob Paying For Charlie? Alice may have to pay Charlie directly, Alice may destroy 1 ETH, or someone else may have to pay 1 ETH through Charlie. Maybe this "other person" could be called Diana rather than Bob. For some ZK rollups that are looking for proof of Bob's payment on the blockchain, but not showing the blockchain, it is not possible to differentiate and find the company that Bob is paying for.

What a lot of smart contracts need is not only to know the wrong clinic, but also to understand the whole chain to understand what is going on and how to do it, how to reach the end state. ZK rollups sometimes boast that there is better "compression" than the best rollups, but only "correctors" know it is not compression and hide data from the blockchain to remove the data. sensitive. If ZK's sponsors say they don't have to disclose the entire history of the blockchain, what does it mean that they can't guarantee the view of the blockchain, and give the view of the blockchain? no blockchain is a good idea. enjoy the peace.

Summary: Optimistic stacking provides unreliable visibility at low cost.

Optimistic rollup vs. Rollup ZK: unreliable timely finality (kawg kawg)

When evaluating your stacking network, you need to determine your most important strategies.Does Rollup provide the amazing time and end time?(completed).Simply put, this means that after submitting an exchange, you and everyone else should know the benefits of a fast and reliable exchange, and no one can interfere or cancel the exchange.

In our opinion, the best way to get a on-time completion is toSeparation of market and trade order. Review makes the final decision on shipping and attempts to finalize changes to this order. If the market is determined (as in arbitrage), the success of the bid is sufficient to complete the outcome. Indeed, these advantages depend on the decision-making process of the company. If everyone knew the company's decision, anyone could easily decide the outcome.

In order to complete a transformation phase, the system must be declared on an L1 chain and the results must be performed without judgment, including sufficient information for anyone to make the changes. same. The best cumulative would be to print as many swap files as possible on the L1 chain.

At best, channel L1 advertising is the cheapest. In fact, Arbitrum typically prints data transfers to the L1 chain in about a minute, giving users the ultimate speed and reliability to ensure that no one can undo them. OK. In addition, Arbitrum develops the new recommended Rollup version every hour, but that does not slow down the end of the set as the board is complete and the finish is decided.

Generally, the ZK winding system can work in the same way. However, just like the optimized post data, the ZK rollup obtained in this way should essentially post the same data to channel L1, but the (so-called) "squeeze" procedure described above does not support this. . For the "squeeze" process to work, the ZK rollup must be proven at the time of the validity of a series of L2 transactions in a single L1 exchange, which must be performed each time per batch of L2 purchased.

So there are only two options for ZK rollup that want to use the popular "squeeze" process.

1) Check the product and set the completion certificate every minute: you can check the final speed, but the ZK certificate should be generated from the chain and check the L1 chain every minute. Based on usage, the cost of providing proof of ZK blockchain is around 500,000 units and 5 million units of fuel.

2) Hourly Market Reports and Certification: This method may make the cost of ZK certification exam a little reasonable, but it can take up to 1 hour. At the time of user referral to ZK Rollups operator and release from the chain, user can not guarantee that the switch will be charged or not, only ZK Rollups customer answering the phone can be trusted. .

If you create a ZK rollup system, you will find that the above two options are not really supported. The first is very expensive and the second cannot be given the last time. So, if you are using the same sequencer that you are using in your expected rollup (Arbitrum), it is important that you publish the same data for the ZK rollup version of Arbitrum.

If you have been told that the ZK rollup can expand the necessary files into one, be careful. If we only present one of the documents after a long time, it means that we have not provided the definitive facts at this stage.

Summary: For performance reasons, ZK stacking system should be completed on time according to quality requirements.

Vs of optimistic stacking. ZK Rollup: Vitality Lack of Confidence

The trustless lifetime means that anyone can perform the process correctly (no trust can guarantee the authenticity of this process).

An approved rollup allows all nodes to be properly exposed to the market. To make a statement, a node must perform a chain exchange and then deposit a stake, which can be claimed once the deal is reached by consensus.

To be successful in the ZK roll-up system, each node must be able to generate and publish ZK credentials to maintain the state of the blockchain, but this must be done using hardware and software that everyone else does. can get and therefore does not need to be done. To do. Or, you can buy your own special-purpose equipment, but without needing a huge number. There must be a way to generate a ZK certificate suitable for the device. If the ZK rollup service provider is not able to do this or declare the numbers used to create the system certification, then the ZK rollup cannot provide unreliable functions and the system does not guarantee the operation. . Their system is centralized because participants with special equipment can operate the system. (It's not clear if the big ZK Rollups service providers can prove to the end user.)

Summary: Hope for the best is easier to build confidence.

Bullish rollup vs ZK rollup: bridging the gap

The advantage of ZK Rollups is that they are a bridge for Ethereum L1. The bullish rollup system offers a one-week delay between withdrawal and L1, while ZK rollup allows for the bridge to be made immediately after issuance of the ZK certificate to L1. In fact, it's not that different than for users of the best rollups.fast connection service, to find out the minimum value of withdrawals from L2 to L1. So, the main advantage of the ZK rollup in this regard is that the users will not have to pay the small amount paid by the connection service (these services will compete with the cost). It is not a theory. The prep room now has several online login services that allow for a quick exit from Arbitrum.

It should be noted that the advantages of ZK rollup in bridging are very limited. Restricted for connecting L2 to Ethereum L1. In the past (around 2019), many people thought the competition process was very slow and only had one or two dApps online. In these situations, rollup users often find themselves recovering from L1 and L2. . . . But we are not of this world. Arbitrum has a strong ecosystem with hundreds of dApps across the DeFi arena, with multiple users logged in and on a long network. Also, users will be crossing a lot more chains than just going to Ethereum for some reason. They are also connected to other L1 chains, and for this direct bridge the ZK rollup is no better than the bullish rollup.

Summary: The ZK rollup system has some advantages for connecting to L1, but the fast connection services and versatile design make these results low.

enter at the end

Comparing the bullish rollup to the ZK rollup, we think the bullish rollup system is the winner. The best rollup is cheaper, higher than the EVM and existing equipment, and the only real downside is that bridging for the L1 doesn't have a quick bridging service. Another advantage of the ZK rollup is that you have to sacrifice the saw chain or the end time, which is not what you want.

For the ZK winding system, this will not change. EVM beyond proof of ZK contract performance is more expensive than expected completion rate, and operating requirements are unreliable, visually appealing, and distribution remains unchanged. If anything changes, we're ready to upgrade Arbitrum to ZK rollup when it's done, but we won't.

I will end with a note. People like to compare what Arbitrum has to offer today with the ZK Rollups system to offer in the future. However, these comparisons do not make sense. By comparing the existing process, we can see that only those like Arbitrum can support the public provision of smart contracts. Or, if you compare the technology of the future, you should compare the future of Arbitrum with the future of ZK winding systems.

We are constantly improving Arbitrum. For example, the next Nitro version features lower cost and better chain materials.lossless compression. We are constantly working to improve Arbitrum and reduce the costs of restrictions. As this article suggests, we consider the current state of these two systems and their theoretical limits,The bullish rollup is clearly the winner..