Emin Gun Sirer of Avalanche (AVAX) on L1 L2 and Right Labels and Code
Emin Gun Sierer shared: Let’s make this a learning opportunity: if you want to claim that an L2 is different from a sidechain is different from an L1, then science requires a categorization that a blind alien from Mars can apply to just the code and yield the right labels.
This categorization cannot depend upon knowing the histories of projects, their future intentions, or whether or not they have advisors who formerly worked for Consensys/EF. It has to stand alone.
So, the challenge is to provide L2 vs sideboard vs rollup vs L1 definitions that categorize the world in line with the usage you want. There’s a lot of material being produced that uses these terminologies, so it’s fair to ask for definitions.
There’s something called “constructive logic,” where you’re not allowed to use negation. A good categorization will be constructive, i.e. it will not involve negation because proving a negative (“there is no …”) is always difficult, often impossible.
Keep in mind that “shares security” is a non-distinguishing (aka meaningless) phrase. “L2″s depend on L1’s, but they also depend on a lot of other security assumptions as well. They are separate chains after all. Some may not even share a wire format. L1s can share wire format.
So, to someone who likes science and thinking clearly, the dichotomy between L2s and L1s seems artificial. To date, no one seems to have proposed a meaningful categorization that our blind alien from Mars can apply.
I eagerly await such a categorization, because it would bring much-needed clarity.
Of course, this discussion would not be complete without this classic. It’s tongue in cheek, but Jorge gently explains the kind of rigor required by scientists.
Unrelated: Wondering what happened with the vesting information of avax as it is not reported anymore. Further, why the fixed supply of 720m is not listed on cm anymore but changed into an unlimited supply. Looks like Solana now wrt tokenomics transparency.
Weird, nothing has changed at the network level. The 720m limit is firmly in place in the code. Vesting schedules cannot be changed in the network. Will look into what happened on CMC now. Keep in mind that that’s just an independent website, the network reigns supreme.
It might be the *recycling* if burned AVAX which “technically” turns Avalanche into a chain with w/unlimited supply. At least that’s my guess about what goes on at CMC. these validators do need to be fed after the genesis AVAX runs out. So design is IMO sound.
Let me try: an L2 guarantees you can exit your positions to L1 in case the sequencer is compromised. In a sidechain you don’t have any fallback to exit in case the consensus is compromised.
Let’s try a constructive categorization (i.e. no negatives like “don’t have any fallback”), and let’s add L1s into the mix, please. Let’s also sanity check that the definition is in line with usage, e.g. polygon should be an L2, or else lots of people have to change their tune.
L1: a state machine, which runs on top of a decentralized consensus L2: an SM, which batches multiple transactions using a network of sequencers into a compressed proof published on L1. It allows emergency exit to L1 No negation used. I don’t care how ppl classify Polygon.
my dude, this is top-tier misinformation. I wonder how many AVAX investors fully understand how poor of an outlook it is for the avalanche that its leader is lying about basic facts at a time when the avalanche is itself poorly positioned for the modular future.
Polygon is the L2 your friends at Bankless are shilling because they have a cut in the token supply. Polygon is an independent chain with a bridge to Ethereum and runs on 100 nodes 2 of which can kill the chain. Tell me again who is lying, who is spreading misinformation?
someone enlighten me. if a tx fails why are we still charged the gas? shouldn’t it be returned?
If someone intentionally causes many transactions to fail, they would spam the network free of charge which would be very bad. I don‘t like it how it is, but I doubt that there is a way around it.
If arbitrum that I use every day went down, http://ethereum.org/en/developers/… states that ”All transaction data is stored on the layer 1 chain, meaning it’s secure and decentralized”. Your thread seems to be just fancy worded gaslighting for the noobs.
Post Views:
25
