Vitalik Buterin sparked a debate on layer-2 classifications

Share this article

A discussion on classifying Layer-2 solutions (L2s) arose in the Ethereum community after a speech by co-founder Vitalik Buterin.

In response to an Ethereum bundle solution posted on X by Taiko founder Daniel Wang, Buterin said operators would end up bundling the system because the assets cannot be unconditionally lifted if the assets are tied to users.

This is correct.

The main thing about being bundled is the unconditional security guarantee: you can withdraw your assets even if everyone else is shorting you. If the DA is dependent on an external system, that cannot be achieved.

But being acceptable is the right choice for many applications, and…

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) January 16, 2024

Buterin adds that despite the classification, the benefits remain relevant for many other applications. Buterin notes that systems based on external data availability (or DA, as described in the tweet), such as Celestia's modular blockchain, are more valuable than “real” scrolls.

Validium and Packet are solutions that reduce congestion and gas fees, allowing Ethereum to process more transactions off-chain.

For security purposes, when posting to Ethereum, it takes batch transactions off-chain, providing scalability. Validium also enables off-chain transactions, but uses zero-knowledge proofs for validity without being published on-chain.

The main difference between the two is the availability of data. In a batch, the data is available on-chain, during validation, the data is stored off-chain and only the hash is stored on-chain.

This diversity makes it more efficient and versatile than a bundle, but it also introduces a data availability risk if data availability providers are patched, censored, or offline. Validum is governed by a set of smart contracts deployed on the mainnet, including a validation contract and a data provisioning committee.

On the other hand, a package publishes a chain of transactions on a chain, making them more secure and reliable but seemingly less private than legitimate.

In this case it is Buterin Suggestion Critical changes to how Layer-2 solutions are classified, based on new Layer-2 solutions with more independent “hard” and “light” labels for armed and legitimate labels, respectively, with the “hard” label replacing “secure” solutions, and “light” The label “balance favors” represents L2s.

This logic is based on the two different purposes that layer-2 solutions serve: scalability and modularity.

In terms of scaling, coils provide compression from transactional baking while maintaining the security inherited from Layer 1. However, data storage and validation processes limit output. Validium avoids this with zero-knowledge proofs that verify off-chain activity without exposing on-chain transaction details. This allows them to scale accuracy to a higher degree.

As for modularity, solutions like Celestia embrace this approach: data availability is customizable based on specific needs, and authentication layers are open for independent deployment. The classification between “light” and “hard” L2s, if implemented as Buterin proposed, affects how modular chains allow for customization in data and authentication components.

The key difference here is that rollover enforces data availability on Ethereum, while maximizing security minimizes modular volatility. On the other hand, validiums enable adaptive data and validation layers to increase performance but also open up trusted assumptions, which can reduce transaction security.

Decentralized payment protocol 3 City investor Ryan Berkmans argued against Vitalik Buterin's proposed taxonomy that legal payments should still be considered Layer 2 solutions. Berkmans Claims The L2 sector has the flexibility to express words in ways that maximize their value.

To support his position, Berkmans points to L2Beat, a data provider that tracks the adoption of Layer-2 protocols, which currently categorizes legal situations under the L2 layer umbrella.

However, L2Beat's descriptive He notes that proofs of legitimacy and other models based solely on proofs of authenticity, rather than direct information provision on Ethereum, introduce additional trust assumptions and fall outside the scope of packet-style L2 solutions. By avoiding base-layer deployment, L2Beat argues that the legal documents fail to inherit the security guarantees that define a typical layer-2 implementation.

The arguments still show inconsistencies in the Layer-2 implementation. Projects like L2Beat aim to bring clarity, but pioneering teams need help with contradictions as they innovate on measurement models that don't fit existing definitions.

The Berkmans support a functional taxonomy that includes advanced networks that expand Ethereum's production and capabilities. In contrast, Buterin and L2Beat advocate more stringent security-oriented requirements, so that legitimate trading cannot conceptually satisfy them.

Share this article