Monolithic Vs Modular scaling | Debate | ETHDam 2024

eum is making the wrong design decisions from a scalability perspective and that's going to lead to its losing its dominance to competitors that have a more competitive solution right that's the basic argument so either ethereum adapts or ethereum loses right I I disagree welcome to e Dem where the scaling debate turns into a showdown meet Justin champion of layer one and togu defender of layer 2 let the F let the show begin begin you guys are awake running a little behind schedule but that's fine so um in my opinion I'm sure opinion of many people the scaling debate is probably the most pivotal idea in all of crypto is if anyone's been here a long time like me anyone's old like me the 2017 era resolution of the block siiz wars and then now it's coming back in a big way for Bitcoin now ethereum is coming through its own sort of a thing it really shapes the space and the giant amount of the industry is based on kind of this so figured we might as well have some um one of the most uh outspoken proponents of layer one scaling lay layer one first actually get a debate so why don't you guys uh really quick go introduce yourselves and just who you are what your background is relative to this subject of layer one versus layer 2 scaling barely hear you yeah yeah so let's go do you want to start or we're all friends here you may hold hands too if you want I'm happy too yeah yeah go for it all right sure so I think one of the reasons I was really Keen to debate tog roll in particular is I really respect how you're able to bite the bullet on some of these issues so maybe it'd be good to maybe we can start off on some of the things we agree on and I was thinking I think one thing we agree on is that the majority of l2s are all extremely centralized and come with some very severe trust trade-offs yeah yeah yeah I I I've basically I'm probably the only person who works for l2s who gets paid to travel around the world and complain about the state of elt yeah I I I agree with that yeah so that's one of the reasons I was very happy to to debate toggle because I I respect people that can that can bite the bullet on on such hard issues I think we probably can also agree that from a purely technical perspective a lot of the critiques that I have they can be solved from a technical perspective do you do you agree with that as well yeah yeah yeah I I think most of the issues that are currently there can and will be solved it's just a question of when all purely from a technical perspective yeah and I think that's that's where we differ in this discussion cuz I think that the problems that we're facing ultimately are not technical problems but they are social coordination problems and and I think where we differ is you believe these problems can be fixed and I don't well let's we're getting like almost to the end of the debate right we're getting very far in before get to the core of it before starting it so quickly clearly because it's easy to say oh I'm an L1 guy I'm an L2 guy but there's so much Nuance so very clearly both of you what exactly are your positions uh I guess I'll start so rollup Centric scaling rocks conventional Shing sucks salana style scaling is okay it has some problems but it's much better than conventional Shing so in my position to to to uh copy some of the language modular scaling or rollup Centric road map sucks I did a talk about this yesterday uh massive fragmentation massive trust tradeoffs um and I'm an advocate of layer one scaling as an alternative uh specifically sh is my favorite approach but I'm not against a paralyzed approach like salana as well so that's my position and that really gets to the Crux of uh of this I would just like to add one thing the conventional sharding when you say uh massive fragmentation and Trust you're basically describing conventional sharding because you get fragmentation and you get additional trust assumptions on on the edge shards okay now this is getting I was wondering where this debate was going to go and go ahead why don't I me just get the big core arguments on either side out there one at a time and then go into well no back and forth you this you this and then do you want to start um sure sure no I I think this is becoming a very productive debate because we're zooming in on the core issues but I can see Joel you'd like us to sketch it out more so that the rest of the audience could he doesn't want everyone else to fall asleep the audience on a journey they have to not everyone is into these intricacies of issues yeah so so the reason reason why I'm so skeptical of uh layer 2 scaling is because I believe it causes fragmentation to the point where you have separate ecosystems so the future that I see for layer 2 scaling is you'd have a optimism ecosystem over here an arbitrum ecosystem over here and an ethereum ecosystem over there and if you notice what I've done here I don't actually consider you know arbitrum users to be ethereum users I think they're arbitrum users in this case and I think in that sense uh you know a lot of these layer 2 ecosystems are actually competing um with the layer one actually over fees over usage and and obviously you know I'm saying all of this with the assumption that we can scale the layer one and I think we should loop back to that critique of shouting later on um but I think for me that is really a nonstarter I think I I just I see it as a dead end I see it as just an uncompetitive solution and I also find it extremely antithetical to the entire Cipher Punk thesis because this idea that all of these l2s are going to voluntarily decentralized I think some of them will but I think a lot of them won't and that just comes down to simple incentives I think coinbase is a perfect example of that with I love coinbase as a company but I don't think they're going to uh give up that power over that system they're not going to give up that Revenue they're not going to give up the ability to uh stop transactions exactly because of what the panel before was talking about they want to I believe they probably will want to have that ability and I just don't see how we can travel from point A to B especially in a world where we can build fully scalable layer ones um that preserve that still preserve decentralization because now you have a single composable state that that creates a very powerful ecosystem that's part of why ethereum was so successful in the first place and I would argue that hypothetically say you have a th000 TPS I would rather that th000 TPS be on one chain as opposed to that same TPS split across five ecosystems all right C Point uh two points here so one uh I I agree that certain protocols certain LTS are not going to decentralized either because by Design they need centralization so for example if you want to have uh offchain order books like CX operating operating as l2s then you're incentivized to keep the data off chain because then you have some plausible privacy in regards to everybody else other than your other than the operator so I think there are certain reasons or just purely from regulations perspective I can I don't agree that base is not going to decentralize purely because I've had too many conversations with op and coinbase people but but I also can see your reasoning why they won't decentralized but I don't think that that Vision can be generalized to every single rollup that's like saying that all the D apps suck because some of them use multisig no I'm I'm not saying this applies to all rollups but I'm saying that this applies this will apply to a sufficient amount of it that that this fragmentation issue Still Remains a real problem because the idea like you can't have a fully decent how many rollups that are currently Al can you name that you think want decentralize uh I would say it's probably like 60% of them if I were to guess if I were to project outbe this is very spe why are you saying that there's multiple reasons I think one is because decentralizing often involves for-profit companies giving up on significant amounts of Revenue okay but but there are multiple reasons why that won't be the fully the case so for example in polygon's case for example they they created a token emission for poll that allows pogan Foundation to acrew a certain percentage of emissions per year and I think a lot of the l2s are going to follow that approach to like offset the profit loss that they're going to lose from uh and not as a company but as a foundation uh to offset the losses that they will take uh by losing the control over the sequencer so let's take coinbase as an example so far they have a revenue of over40 million uh dollars in the base chain yeah right you're saying they're going to give up that revenue and instead they're going to create a token which they can then make money off I'm not talking about coinbase specifically I'm talking about I I I think you might have an argument with coinbase and Bas I still disagree with it I'm not sure like how that's going to play out because like also from the legal perspective I I I I don't really see right now how coinbase can launch a base token but I think that only apply out of all the major rollups and like also because I've had conversations with all of them and like we shared our vision of how we want to decentralize Etc I can tell you almost with 100% guarantee that everybody else is going to decentralize at some point I know but this seems to be like this is a promise this is it's not a promise there technical reason why people don't do it right now there are multiple reasons why people don't do it yet so one of the reasons is while you control the sequencer uh the tech is still immature so the like for example if you take ZK rollups for example how many people can audit a circuit not a lot maybe like thousand in the world maybe no no that's very optimistic I would say 20 30 so like probably right if if you decentralize aover right now what happens if you have a critical bug and someone can basically exploit it and steal the funds you're screwed so people don't decentralize there are multiple reasons but that can be solved so like for example we just introduced a multi-prover so we use two provs that run in parallel and basically if both of them agree on the same there are different implementations so one of them is a Halo to or a ZK prover and the other is an sgx prover keep my mind my argument is not that these systems can't technically decentralize right but but then but then but then I I think your argument is wrong because the only reason why we don't decentralize now is because technically we're still taking a lot of Risk by decentralizing rate do you agree that the only way to solve fragmentation is for a shared sequencer no how do you achieve fragment again what do you mean by fragmentation do synchronous or real time or asynchronous because like I can say put the same argument towards Shard sharded chains okay I mean I mean you you've repeated that for a second time now I think I should address it I think what you're saying here is actually false in regards to shing no I mean shter chains are fully able to maintain composability but not real time composability the trade-off is a few second delay ination there's nothing preventing you from doing but but hold on hold on like if a few second delay in confirmation times is the trade-off for shouting what kind of a trade-off are we dealing with a fragmented L2 ecosystem isn't that far worse but why are you saying that uh l2s can't have few seconds of uh synchronization delay no between Layer Two yeah between layer twos why why do you think that they don't can't have it because you're dealing with different rulle hits so let's let's define it's irrelevant because the only thing that you need is like a fast messaging layer that it would be ethical for a fully decentralized layer 2 to be seamlessly interoperable with a centralized custodian out to do would you consider that to be a good practice but the thing is answer the question but can you prevent that from happening in a permissionless system that's exactly my point you can't prevent that from happening and therefore you fragmentation but what prevents me from launching a custodial L2 on a on a a monolithic chain there's okay now there's a big difference if you launch a custodian L2 on on a layer one that's actually scalable no one's going to use it I mean that's also why if ethereum scale tomorrow all of these layer twos are going to go out of business that's like saying that nobody's going to use apps D apps that have multisig and then if you look at the majority of the D apps they have multisig that's just not a good argument but that's not the goal right and and some of the major I agree with you that and some of the major D Blue Chips don't have admin keys but then but then but then why are you uh like that argument only works if like the only viable L2 out of all of them are the custodial l2s but like that's not the case like no no I'm not saying that I'm saying that because of incentives you're going to have a mixed ecosystem you're going to have some custodian but they can work uh on L1 as well you can have a custodian D app into uh messaging with the right but what you're doing what you're doing by not scaling the layer one is you're pushing users into l2s which can Ste user funds which which are often sodi which can right but you also say that a chain like base probably might not decentralize right because they can't create their own token there's a plausible argument right but if they can't create a token they can't decentralize let's refocus they can use for example there are certain ways you can decentralize but that's just a subset of ethereum security in that case no but I'm but but again that that's only subset when it comes to very very specific properties because uh doesn't matter like what rollups do a lot of the properties are taken from the L1 so like you're you're talking about very very specific subset of properties yeah like the ability to censor the ability to steal funds ability deny access a rollup can't censor that's like that's like the most basic feature of a rollup Order in the Court Order in the Court um we're getting a lot of first off we're getting to the point where now we're saying yes this is good to have actually have this debate uh there's a couple things that were mentioned one thing is on there seems to be this argument on U rollups and l2s where they it's a predictive argument right where they will go I think both of you agree where they are today which is or a lot of them which is not a favorable State there's an exception yes there's exception version one it has eight in it so the argument then is that it seems like uh tog you seem to say that over time that the the barrier to decentralizing from a lot of these things tend to be a technical one because there's only a technical barrier because of the risk where it seems like Justin believes that there's an economic barrier to the to the opposite right to and so would you guys quickly drill down why do you think it's so to why don't you go first why do you think it's a purely technical barrier to decentralizing l2s and what do you think why don't you think there will be an incentive to stay but because even if you put away the fact for a the profitability let's say like yeah that's an advantage but also like for example optimism doesn't take the profits they put it into retroactive funding and a lot of elt are going to do that so that's a form of taking profit I mean they can direct those funding to their own companies yeah but they're not doing it so they're not for-profit like like your whole argument is based that it's a for- profit are you saying optimism is not a for-profit company optimism is not a for-profit company in a sense that it doesn't take sequence or fees and you don't think people are making millions of dollars off it uh uh who specifically I mean there's a optimis there's an optimism token that's worth a lot of money that is invested into right but that's a completely different conversation just like how you raised over 80 million for your Ico right uh we didn't do an Ico but yeah we did raise uh a bit of money right uh uh do you think you would have made more money developing the layer one or a layer two I think a layer one would be we're still getting at least right now building a lirer one would be more uh profitable no I mean like no I mean like working for the foundation or making your own layer too what's more profitable do you think working for a foundation for ethereum foundation seriously getting a wage is more profitable than getting an 80 million euro uh yeah but that's like saying why would you build an app that that that basically raises money just build an open source app and launch it like the I I don't see like why this is an argument I'm going to bring it back to the core a little bit here because because what you're saying so so the thing is the only way that I see fragmentation being because this is really the main issue here in terms of the main critique do you want to explain quickly why you think that the economic incentives will always in that way and maybe so I'm playing Devil's Advocate or tog girl's Advocate whatever in this case um app devil you're an angel uh what what if um in a competitive environment who would want to use a centralized L2 so maybe the L2 say he look we still get some fees but if we use a decentralized sequencer if we we do all this kind of stuff we are people were switch from you not picking on bass here right but switch from things like bass to using a decentralized L2 and so all the l2s might have to decentralize if it's technically feasible right once the the technical problems get worked out they will want to do that to retain their customers why wouldn't they you tell me why wouldn't they so there's a there's a demographic problem here right so the people that are fine using centralized layer twos are using the centralized layer twos today and the people that want to be on scalable l1s just move to scalable l1s and that becomes this reinforcing dynamic in terms of you can never Escape that anymore that's part of crypto demographics we see that happening a lot but I would like to bring this back to the fragmentation PP so I assume you'd disagree with Justin Drake when he says that a sheared sequencer is the only way to solve fragmentation oh just Justin Drake yeah I completely disagree with okay I respect that um so so how do you so okay so are you familiar with the Shar sequence concept yeah I I had a a lot of long chats with Justin about I have as well actually uh the thing is uh I think what you're saying Justin's argument is more about realtime compossibility versus frag uh asynchron let's Define fragmentation because both you seem to not like it what do you mean Justin doesn't disagree that you can have composability between chains that don't have a shared sequencer his argument is the the only way you can have real-time compossibility with wi different l2s is via a shared sequencer which which yeah I agree with I mean that's I mean I mean I mean you're admitting that you lose real-time composability but so do sharded chains absolutely not that's false that's a false claim wait can how much have you investigated shed systems how do they lose I've been working on sharding since like 2016 but okay right that's fantastic uh so so like uh and how do they uh compose in real time how do two shards that don't have a same that don't have Universal ordering there there's a cross shad communic sh communication is not synchronous no it a few second delay but that's not real time like that's the point you can also few second delay before confirmation that's that's no different to ethereum with 12C can make the same argument for l2s there's nothing preventing l2s from having a few second delay between uh communication on SEC can you explain that a little more because that doesn't make any sense when you say that why doesn't it make any sense okay so you're you're saying that all of the layer tws are all just going to agree on the same interoperability protocol but you don't have to have the same interop interoperability protocol then don't you need to go through a bridge yeah but but but then yeah that's a but that's a horrible ux a bridge is the perfect example of a fragmented ecosystem hundreds of millions of Euros are being lost by users in bridges why are you why are you saying what Bridges is the solution to an alto ecosystem are you but because like it's a really bad argument the only reason why uh why is that a bad argument because the only reason why the losses are happening right now is because L2 bridges are sharing the block space completely with everybody else and so you're essentially like when you're bridging your token let's say from scroll to optimism you're competing with someone buying a shitcoin on etherium do you acknowledge that there's extra steps involved in the ux here because you're saying oh I have to switch between one out two it's automated but hold on but you even have different tokens that you have a like like a US token on optimism is not the same as a US token arbitrum right like you need to actually figure out what network you're on what type of token you have these are all only app third party tokens that argument can be made the same for third party Bridges or any chain like that doesn't the P the same argument is made for Bridges but not for like scalable layer one no because like us what scroll recognizes as a native usdc is the same usdc that optimism recognizes as the as the native usdc the only thing is they live on two different change okay but hold on but do you acknowledge that from a user's perspective there's several extra clicks there's several delays there's more knowledge there's one delay that's it that's that's mind-blowing to me because that's not at all the experience of layer 2os right yeah but again we're talking about Layer Two today like I agree with you that the state of layer to how do you solve it because I haven't seen a solution so there are multiple ways you can solve it one you can have storage proofs that's not an ideal solution but that's the easiest that you can get fast and then but but that's what requires all of so see the problem for me the biggest problem for me is the coordination problem right because what you're implying is that all of these l2s are going to agree on common protocols and these l2s are competing parties that's why there's a disincentive for for them to integrate with each other but how many how many times have you been in a chat where multiple LTS are working together on certain standards I've been in a lot of chats like that if you think that we don't speak to each other and we don't work on standardization behind the scene you're very extremely handwavy to me and don't you see the irony because you're not in that chat okay I mean that's not an argument right yeah but but also like you're saying it's handwavy I'm saying it's not because I'm actually involved in those conversations okay but basically your argument is I know it's going to be fixed in the future I can't tell you how no no no no no no wait wait wait I was telling from the perspective you're saying that that there's an incentive not to collaborate I'm saying that there's an incentive to collaborate I can tell you how it's going to be solved my point is that there's an incentive coll to collaborate because I'm involved in those conversations so we just have to trust you then so hold on this is an actual I'll I'll post a screenshot on Twitter good thing I seen some of these same discussions and you know what I find extremely ironic about these discussions now this is one point and then I'll let you get the thing in all right I know the moderator is being look what I find very ironic some of these chats where the l2s get together to to work in terms of how can we create a composable ecosystem right I find it so ironic because you have Ager proposed as a sheared interoperability protocol and a sheared sequencer you have the optimism super chain proposed as a shared sequencer you have the base no hold on hold on and then I'll and then I'll let you make the argument you have the base sequencer right that's that that's also meant to be the shear to you have all these different companies which are all proposing interoperability protocols or a way to fix fragmentation and they're all competing with each other I don't see the a layer being surrendered I don't see the super chain being all of these parties are competing with each other and they charge fees interoperability within the given ecosystem that has nothing to do with inability between those chains like you can have optimism running super chain polygon running a layer somebody else running whatever like trust me bro layer I don't know and you can still have a standard where you can communicate between them those two are completely I'm saying is that not okay how come everyone hasn't adopted a common layer one communication protocol we have the cosmos we have the dots we have a bunch of different standards how come today after more than 15 years we don't have a common interoperability protocol between all layer ones can you answer that question why is that the case yeah but then that's completely irrelevant to L it's very irrelevant because I would say it's the same argument you could apply to to leer twos how come layer ones have been unable to agree on common inability protocols given ecosystems have standards IBC Works between different l1s it doesn't work between all ler ones and Cosmos for instance is a competing system that's cool but like I'm not saying that it's going to work there like 20 of these interoperability protocols all competing with each other yeah so now we s simmer down a little bit a couple big big breaths so there's a there's a common theme after like everything got hashed out to a point of there's a lot of prediction going on this will happen that will happen this won't happen this won't happen this will happen how will this happen stomp your foot whatever uh in all this so first of all um what is so we're talking about the fragmentation problems um of l2s as well as of sharding that's been brought up that sharding because of a several second delay or whatever so the current state we're talking about 2024 April as far as it's still April um what is the state of both of these so first what is the state of sharded chains fully sharded chains today today can the user have that that lack of fragmentation with in between shards today in the user experience if I were to go on my computer right now after this and try something out can I have that and what what are the user experience frictions I would experience by doing this so this several blockchains uh today that have fully implemented sharding that have solved this uh problem with composability the main trade-off here being a few second delay in confirmation how many is few seconds two or three seconds one block basically one block so yeah one it is two or three seconds you agree with that thing depending on the protocol yeah which which I would argue is equivalent uh because the layer one itself basically acts as the common interoperability protocol the layer one becomes the shelling point that we can all agree around and when you create a fragmented ecosystem these fragments can't all agree on the same interoperability proing you still haven't answered my question let's let's not Offroad right now so as far as the fragmentation problem for l2s today um we I I heard a lot of things and I as I'm not as deep in the space what is the state today so it depends on a specific chain like for example with ZK chains I would say the delay is between 30 minutes and an hour for optimistic if you go through the native Bridge it's around one what seven days yeah so it's like a 30 minute or whatever or several days depending on this and obviously this is not where we'd like the tech to be this is where it is today and so it seems like the the argument seems to be sharting works today um this the L2 thing will work someday yeah so what is um first of all what is a a likely time time frame for this obviously we can't predict this is Tech everyone's like when will you solve when you land people on Mars and have a colony right no one knows until it happens but what's a realistic time frame for something like this I would say decentralization for the majority happens in a year year and a half Max okay so a year and then fragmentation should be solved by the time we get realtime proofs which should be two three years from now yeah two years okay so this is a three so this is where it actually comes to right because debates are you know what do they say like op opinions are like you know what everyone has one right yeah we could talk all days about our opinions but a lot of this is based on what will or will not happen so three years and so um what first of all I'll ask you first and then I'll go go to Justin with the same question on this um what evidence or what future occurrences would cause you to believe that you were right or may maybe that you were wrong so is it fair to say that within 3 years if a lot of this cross composability issue across l2s and centralization of sequencers Etc if this is solved in the next let's say two three years will you believe you're right or is there a different time frame for example no I I think yeah if it solved within two three years like right now the the the main issue that it hinges on is realtime proofs the like for example now you can have composability like theoretically within like 2 3 minutes because the proofs take a bit longer but like the proofs are speeding up and like I I assuming that the proofs are real time in like two years which I think they will two three years we can have it in in like basically the the the the communication can be basically minimized the same as what Charter chains are so what evidence or occurrences would cause you to believe that you were maybe wrong or is in today you today in your opinions and predictions what would cause you to believe yeah never mind I think I was wrong on that based on what I've seen today and so I think the main EV evidence would be if we don't have it working in three years in three years so what if it's working in is it four years or is it like by five years you're like okay I think I'm not no I think five years I can almost guarantee that I was going to be there not almost I can guarantee that I was going to be there three I think is like a very good estimate but I again like there's a certain probability that it will be delayed bit because it's ethereum and everything is slow in ethereum takes time what about six years or seven years like no no no at what point if it doesn't happen in five years I'm wrong yeah there we go we got that we got that on paper now what what about you so what do you at what what would cause you um what what future evidence would you take to believe that you were right on this point and then what future evidence would be like you know what maybe I wasn't right so for me I think what I would want to see in a layer two EOS system is basically a experience because I believe we can scale the L1 an experience that's 100% equivalent to using a layer one blockchain which means that the layer 2 needs to have 100% equivalent security ux trust tradeoffs and then across the entire ecosystem for a second can we stop here rollups have better security than conventional sharding so you've already lost there this that's that doesn't make any sense no no starting does not sacrifice security Shing does sacrifice absolutely not with the only exception being dos attacks wait wait wait wait wait uh you have 1,000 validators running the beacon chain for example let's take a conventional shed approach where each of the chains get randomly assigned a certain comittee right a subcomittee that subcomittee by default is smaller than the comedy of the underlying B country but because they're randomly assigned a for has equivalent security it of that's not how how do you attack A Single Shard then what how do you attack A Single Shard it's probability based I'm not saying you can attack it have you looked at those probability numbers are you kidding me it's much higher than the L1 probability or it's completely insignificant are you kidding me this is this is not a sincere argument I'm sorry yeah hold s like that's not how maths work no no no like like I've seen the Maths for this are you kidding two minutes left in the entire talk I think there's a really important point I would like to make because you did not answer my question you keep you keep steering away away from this idea that is that there's a technical problem to be solved and I've brought the perfect example which is the layer one ecosystem how come we don't know hold on how come we don't have a common interoperability protocol between all layer ones and I would argue the same thing won't happen between layer Twos for the exact same reason can you answer that question because if you can't then you've got a major problem in your argument here no because because you're comparing two different things I can point to Cosmos ecosystem having an inability interoperability Cosmos EOS system is not interoperable with the dot ecosystem right yes but you are talking about an etherum ecosystem there's a bunch of Cosmos chains that are completely independent from one another which is your ARG L system is still fragmented and by the way Cosmos has sheared security that's the equivalent of a shared sequencer what Cosmos has shared security now today it depends on the setup of the notes right no no no no that that's like I'm sorry but that's okay you know what I I'll I'll concede I think I might have confused it with thought but that that that doesn't that's irrelevant to the AR I'll give no but but like my argument is that Cosmos has a bunch of dispersed chain that don't chains that don't have to adopt that standard yet they do because it makes sense to communicate and and the common standard in Cosmos is the equivalent of a shared sequencer no it's not what at least from IBC is a messaging protocol it has nothing to do it's a technology that allows for interoperability that needs to be agreed upon by all parties I would say in that sense it's a messaging protocol it's not technology it's basically an IPI message protocol is not technology I mean that's just it's an API come on that's just semantics at this point no you still don't answer the question how come we don't have full seamless interoperability between all l1s how come but but again I don't care about you can't answer that question can you with all respect is a little off topic not the topic of L1 interoperability it's a little bit different and we're also 14 seconds left um so it's the same social coordination problem that was Point let us yeah but like solved it so audience questions save me from this madness anyone want to ask a question that I have not already asked at this point cage fight next next door afterwards no still yeah yeah I can yeah I'm good this first um question is interesting right so Justin why do you think there's a higher chance people agree to use one L1 uh than to use a default cross chain standard for l2s and by the way just as a personal example for this after Bitcoin kind of did not scale properly for payments there's so many different payment chains obviously I use some of them I can't tell you which one's winning out like seven years later there is there is no alt L1 that has done that in the payment chain in my opinion so basically what makes you think what makes you think that um when that all users will cess around one L1 rather than there will be like you know salana and of ethereum and a bunch of competing l1s even if they all scale and Shard and everything and that there won't they won't be it'll end up being like a fragmented L2 ecosystem no I I I I I don't think that um we'll end up with a single layer one that's that's not my perspective at all I mean in terms of future I would probably predict about 5 to 10 Dom layer Ones based on engineering trade-offs ideological trade-offs maybe geopolitical divides but like you're in a competitive environment here so you have one blockchain where uh the base layer has high fees is congested you're forced to use layer 2os which are fragmented versus simply fragmented L1 hold on like versus simply just using a layer one that works that is fully composable and that is why salana today has more TPS ethereum and all layer toos combined why do you think that is why do you think is losing we're just answering questions right now wa wait wait wait wait wait we don't have to go back what do you think is a fundamental bottleneck of ethereum uh a fundamental bottleneck of I mean it's probably would come down to processing maybe a a state bloat it's it's a state size yeah well that's the second thing I State size no state blo is a is a bandwidth is a common one as well no no bandwidth is not the bottleneck the bottleneck is St depends who you ask right if you ask a Bitcoin Maxi they'll tell you band with is a bottleneck so yeah but but depends how you prioritize also like Bitcoin is barely useful so like we can agree on that so like uh I think that's a good note to end on cuz uh I think some I think some of us want lunch and I know Justin's going to be on another panel coming up I believe so you probably also need to eat lunch uh I would love to give a round of applause to our amazing panelists thank you everyone now on the way out hug wo man you is your blood like I feel like my blood pressure is up like I wasn't even on like involved in this debate I mean I guess the conversation continues off stage let the fight begin you have delayed upgrade ability so there's governance for hl2 I'm not I'm not too happy with that situation right that an admin key can change the rules and you say it's okay because there's a onee delay like you have governance I'm not really okay with that you have one chain governance it's not it's not you have an admin key that upgrades but you use what do you think how do you think we achieve better governance a single L1 with a single governance or 20 l2s each of their individual governance which governance system do you think is going to be have higher guarantees in terms of Economic Security uh but but L l2s all have l1's underneath l1's underneath guaranteed no no no no but but that's not the argument right sorry they don't they don't govern upgradability yeah yeah so you feel pretty confident that in the 3 to 5 years all the l2s that contained say 95% of the tvl of defi will migrate to a consistent consensus mechanism that doesn't have admin keys but you don't need therefore give you the equivalent security of the L1 but you don't need a consensus mechanism for that like governance is different no no the thing is the the layer one consensus the layer one that that to me is the shelling that's why I want to enshrine all of these functions so that from consensus but that solves the coordination problem right yeah but but coordination again like Define coordination problem is it like technical coordination as in ordering or for instance uh uh agreeing on a shared sequencer or agreeing on common interoperability protocols between layer twos that's the coordination problem but then that doesn't impact security though uh I mean not having standardized sequenc assuming that they're all decentralized doesn't impact the security uh no but it impacts censorship resistance right sequencers can sensor right if you have a decentralized sequencer you you're Max not if you have a DC yeah but that's what I mean if you have a so do you have confidence that once again 90% of the tvl in 3 to five years will be operating on l2s that have a decentralized sequencer such that they can't they can't censor transactions technically you don't need to have so so I I think I think for except Bas I'm confident that everybody else would have a decentralized therefore will Bas be less than 10% of the T I don't know a pretty major problem but but again but then you can say like people are but now that that begs the question of are you actually having better security and sensor resistance on the l2s overall because you're dependent on so many different l2s achieving that level of quotequote decentralization versus a sharded chain where your security is simply total nodes divided by the actual uh number of shards say four right because you agree that's the security issue with shards if you're dividing by the number of shards but then you can also launch an app that there's permissionless or on any chain right I see an L2 that sorry as a as a permission app I see an L2 as like the type of a permission have you can have l2s that are permissionless and completely like decentralized you have al2 our permission and you're free to use the problem like use and to have a single composable ecosystem you need the vast majority of l2s to all agree to this but then but then like but then the same argument can be applied like no because with the layer one do you agree that the major the majority of the users are going to come from centralized ex exchanges going forward um they will come from centralized exchanges and they and guess what they'll tend to use the centralized chains like Bas like no they're just going to do us on TR that's like if you would what is this argument right now I'm not sure I'm just I'm just saying like because because ask the tvl that's my ask my my argument is a question is do we think that a vast majority of the usage which is typically the tvl is a good metric of that will be on chains that have achieved this level of censorship resistance and uh decentralization if we don't think that is and I don't think it is because so many users are coming from the centralized uh centralized exchanges which then promote the centralized chains IE as an example coinbase when you withdraw eth by default they withdraw it on base for a [ __ ] sake all right and now all of these wallets that don't support base are getting eth and their users are bitching like where is where is my eth it didn't anyway that's on the side either way they are putting people on their centralized chains and so I have low confidence that the ecosystem of l2s in 3 to 5 years will be tvl on the more distributed censorship res and decentralized l2s this is why is so important because the decentralized community needs to give a better alternative yeah that's it that's it we have yeah we have to provide a better Dell alternative exactly in terms of US starts at the protocol but US starts at the protoc but they don't want to work together because they have a financial intive but question is there the financial but hopefully there is incentive if your here the thing no no but if the argument is thatt not proving that that way but if the argument is that coinbase is going to find all all their users to base and base is going to be decentralized right that's that's like the say that again so so coinbase is incentivized to funnel their users to base yes correct yeah right but then but then like this argument is like but binance is incentivized to fun all their users need to make decentralization desirable and that something that people want to use you're just funding people to centralized system no no it's motivated but they're not motivated to decentralize the chain no I I I I understand that point but like even if you make the L other l2s desirable like how does that prevent Co base from coin okay but then but then binance is going to just funnel all the users to binance Smart chain like they're doing now but all the TV and we have to build alternatives to that that arum can be for l2s you have a good alternative to Bas no because the ecosystem as a whole right is not a good ux why we just went over this no I I I don't get that part it's like you can have Wall Gardens within within like one open space you can have smaller W but it's still fragmentation this is all fragmentation fragmentation that's unnecessary in in in an L1 system right and and also just just maybe one point you understand my background is from the humanities so political science it's a different original back I mean I've been doing this for over a decade but my original background's that right so the way I look at this as well like power crops and Absol power crops absolutely and if you look at systems on mass what you're saying is that these layer twos that decentralize they have to surrender their own power in order to do that that fundamentally goes against like history and political force surrender well for in the case of Bas they have to surrender their revenue to decentralize they have to surrender their ability to censor to decentralize they have to surrender a whole bunch of again I'm not saying that Bas is going to decentralize it's a case of surrendering power I'm saying that base is going to decentralized like I'm not sure why you're telling me this so all right so do you feel confident they won't no I don't know in 3 to five years you had to you know are you 51% they will or 51% they I think it's 5050 okay but say a CO but but say if Bas has 30% of the tvl in 5 years but let's say BFC has 50% of the Global TV hold on hold on that means it's fragmented means the ethereum ecosystem is fragmented versus a shouted system that's not fragmented but if nobody uses that system overall there's still fragmentation so that's not an eye you can't tell nobody is is funneling all the users to BSC your chain they fantastic but that's my point of course they'll do that but then but then what's is the difference between coinbase fining users because I want a cryptocurrency to offer a viable competitive alternative calized exchange and it has achieved a higher amount of volume than all the other LS volum tvl no TPS yes but TPS also bear in mind the cheaper the chain is the more spam you get on the Chain which is why we want cheap transaction fees so that we have more activity on chain do we want to because absolutely activity by default doesn't mean good activity just I disagree with you on that if they pay a fee and it's activity that's good as long as the activity is paying a fee and it's and it's funding the value no no no but but like you can't saying is like is like uh as long as you're making enough money to be able to pay for the protocol which is the same thing as saying like a CCO in the US sells everything super cheap raised within margins really cheap fees but it makes a boatload of volume I I think that's fine as long as long as you don't say that it's active users because I'm not saying that ethereum clearly has more users right now but but you're but you're making an argument that it's doing more TPS and the reason why it's doing more TPS is because it's cheaper so it's cheaper to spam why we need cheap fees on the layer one so that we get more transactions what is your estimate what is your estimate of how many what percentage of the transactions on salana are are done by Bots versus what percentage of transaction I I don't care honestly I'll give you an it's probably 90% B so what I don't care no no no but but it's do you understand how the stock market works it's also all B no no no but but like but like if if it's like three people like I can have a you know eum has a major problem because it doesn't have all those bots on the it's but the can also but the BS the BS are doing that because they're trying to to extract it's not like they're doing the BS are doing are v b transactions leg that's legitimate usage oh no I'm not saying that it's not legitimate what I'm saying is like if you have a chain that is doing 1 million sorry we got multiple one at a time yeah if you're purely measuring adoption based on TPS I'll agree a moderator I would agree I would agree you don't want to measure adoption purely on TPS I agree with thate collection is a better metric so how many millions of dollars in fee collection are you making and also uh what's that amount relative to the cost to run the network so obviously if you're collecting a huge amount of money but it costs way more to run the network like all the total validator PCS to just Spam a chain with Che transactions and then say oh look at our adoption no yeah but that only lasts for so long that's not the case that's like that's like a VC just buying like say you funded Amazon and a bunch of e is just buying goods on Amazon to show that you have a whole lot of transaction volume that's only going to last so long yeah you're run out of money money mostly arage and mean I I agree that fees are indicative of like usage I just don't think you can present the TPS argument as an argument for like adoption no not not wrong I wasn't doing that is better metric but not a great metric but but I do think it's it's it's significant that Sana has exceeded ethereum TPS because if ethereum L1 scaled that TPS would be on ethereum right now that's a loss that's a loss you know that's that's that's salana eating part of ethereum is lunch like the speculative Ico Mania that happened in 2017 can't happen on ethereum now it's happening on Sana inste looking atting at all you know looking atting toally doesn't like sharting to no they have people being building l2s theoretically I don't think that's true either but but theoretically I mean some people are building l2s but the core team is not an L2 Foundation is not building an L2 either no but they're encouraging it and they're changing L1 and they're refusing to scale the L one that's that's a that's a that's an action that's a conscious action that's a conscious decision to do that actually making changes to L1 to to make it easier for E will scale to a certain degree it just won't scale to the level that you like right and salana is a different thing in the sense that they want to scale to that and anyone is free to build an L2 right you can't stop yeah I'm not against people building point is salana is intentionally competing with that and saying no no no no no we're going to go as fast as we can so that the L2 becomes irrelevant that's a difference in mentality that's it that's it exactly and that's also difference in mentality for other chains that are doing sharding it's like no you can build an L2 but we're going to make you as irrelevant as possible because we're going to make the L1 as fast as possible as cheap as possible so then there's very little reason to actually use an L2 if the L1 is scalable right yeah but again there's isues cases I'll admit but there not a replacement right for the layer one that's I wouldn't build an an L2 on an L1 that is going really cheap and fast and doesn't want me to ex and doesn't want me there are reasons to build an yeah but sure they World gens have a right to exist if as long as they're not enforced so if you're forced to live in a world Garden none of this discussion by the way I don't think applies at just I it's all voluntary yeah exactly this is all voluntary you do whatever you want right but part of doing whatever you want is encouraging people in a direction and it's also like giving and giving people information that that helps drive that decision and my myque here is that etherum is making the wrong design decisions from a scalability perspective and that's going to lead to its losing its dominance to competitors that have a more competitive solution right that's the basic argument so either theorum adapts or theum loses right I I disagree I I I I the only the only the only competitor that I can the only viable competitor that I can see right now is salana that's that is I mean that's that's a so how did salana get to to its level Fe collection wise maybe like how did it actually go and successfully become this this threat that you deem it to be I I I like main reason why go here like in the after FDX GLS because before it it was just somehow survived after the ex impressive no no I'm I agree with that but like so salana can be like split into two phases one before if thex collapse and one after after they they built a great echosystem of developers and and a few cool apps I think that's the reason why they they've been like because if you look at most and because of I was say if if they built if they did that and literally copy pasted e you I I think if salana had the same fees at etherum right now I don't think it would be able to so definitely it's it's it's scaling Health yeah it gives a a particular competitive Advantage scaling alone doesn't okay so now all the other things that salana did are those not impossible for a sharding chain to come out and do as well like L what if you just copy pasted salana but on the under the covers it's possible I'm easy but I think salana ux would be better okay so like if if you're trading off the ux you might as well go the r way and if you're not trading off the ux you might as well go the Sal away like charting is in between where it's like not as good as salana what good ux because for my what's theux user there's delays there's Etc like that's the only that's only for developers as well they have to like keep track of all the shards have to you have to listen to the messages from all the shards no you don't I thought you understood we agree to this sharting is abstracted from the user including the developer and the developer if you if you have the interface and a transaction is initiated from Shard one you have to show in an interface that that transaction was initiated but the layer one so so you have to track all the shards not as a developer not as a developer the protocol deals with that yeah not as a no no I mean I mean you don't physically like have to like send the transactions for the for the protocol I mean from the ux perspective so like if I open a wallet the wallet shows my transaction history right so it has to show track every Shard right not not the I mean wallet doesn't have to go in track every second I mean you just have a light wallet that does it right I mean the light wallet does what do you mean by light wallet well like uh like what is it called again uh uh what's SP SPF like that that type of situation like like you all none of the none of the smart contract chains even have SPF there's simply like an index indexer somewhere okay so have a third like off offchain indexer and that's actually very that that's way more lightweight to implement given that you only have to track the addresses and balances of your specific user base on an SPF or no SPF no one spfs on uh smart contract chains it's simply was working on it but I'm not Sal right now you just simply like oh here's my address what are my balances yeah just index everything yeah you don't see you don't see any of its internal shards you know you no no developer will um will be interfacing with no developer writing a smart contract and no developer um writing like a wallet and definitely no user will see shards no you won't see physical shards but you have to track all the shards track shards track the transactions initiated on each Shard so you're saying only the transactions remain on the so in salana I just have one chain I Dr that chain sorry you're saying that the sharts keep the end result and they not uh so so the computation happens on the shart and at the end of the computation the result is not being promoted back to the main chain no no no like if for example go to the main chain yeah the proof goes to the main chain yeah the proof goes only the proof not the state correct yeah only the proof goes to the the root you can also publish the root I it's a lot more efficient I think the way egld works they just have the Shar blck headers are stored in the M yeah so so root is also as a developer you can easily just have a query it's it would be trivial to have a query node which when you just simply ask the question it tell it it grabs it from the appropriate Shard but in the end that will be cheaper that would be absolutely trivial that could be part of every uh every one of the have it on the as part of the L1 protocol because that creates additional load on the noes yeah but if you have a system of a million TPS inefficiency doesn't really matter that much right in this case also one argument you didn't make is the inefficiency of cross transactions right that adds additional overhead but I argue if you have 100,000 million TPS I'm okay if it's like twice or three times less efficient right I don't think it matters at a scale exactly yeah I don't I don't think that matters much like I I think it's the same way that I'm not sure if you know how salana is building a light client so salana doesn't have a state route the state route is computed like once every Epoch which is like once every two days so what they do instead is they basically send the transaction that checks the storage of a specific slot at at a specific block and if that transaction succeeds then they're like oh yeah the balance is this so they basically like have to send transactions because it's Salon is so cheap it doesn't matter they the light plan is just send those transaction to check the state of a certain balance sure so no but what I mean it's wasteful but it doesn't the user the user sure sure but the transac is so low anyway yeah yeah it's like yeah but wouldn't every shart being able to elect some data to put back to the uh layer one or the main chain the main State be cheaper than having having a growing list of shots and having a discovery service on top of that because obviously that goes out control some point no no but there's that's where the bottleneck lies is the number of shards because then the you can solve that if you don't have to discover the shards anymore uh State and elect state that you can put back to you publish all the transaction data on the L1 not all so as a developer you should elect some data like the minified version of everything that happen so this doesn't have to go back only this goes back and you pay for it but then you're but then you're increasing the bottle that's probably not worth it in terms of the tradeoff I think in the end it might be actually cheaper than this cering a million shards Noli you can't do that exactly I the scalability stops there but here the scalability might no but the saying I'm saying a thousand shots that's feasible right each Shard maybe does a few th000 TPS right that's how I'm getting some of these numbers right but like you if you go beyond that then the uh Beacon chain that's that's that's the bottom neck that's just how they are implemented at this time right that's just how they are technically implemented at this time but there can be like you can have a million ways of sharting sounds like you got some ideas to start your own layer [Laughter] Mar specifically developed software I think we are talking about the mechanics of already specifically developed software well actually we should think about how can we solve this problem in a generic way and of course probably you're not going to compete with ethereum so you have to it's think keep you are competing at that point or you this is better if you have good proposition or you can hope to maybe convince them a while then they might I yeah I mean the leip changes there needs to be like they need the community needs to overthrow the leadership in order for shouting to be implemented right a lot like what happened during the block size debates which I was a part of don't you think that they would listen to reason if you really offer a better Al I've been talking with Justin Drake behind the scenes through DMs and uh I respect the guy but he he disagrees with me so I can't convince him is mindset yeah there's potentially also economic incentive that too yeah that's and that's the strongest thing of anything yeah which is like there's a lot of money going into L2 makes the world millions of dollars for L2 funding and only a few million for L1 funding probably not even I just collected 250 just collect no no I said for ethereum L1 scaling the foundation is not giving money to to develop L1 scaling right yeah but because the assumption is that the l2s are going to scale exactly that's why there's billions of dollars of incentive for L scaling and no incentive for lir1 scaling that's perverse in my has money you're just not spinning it on a yeah so it's not an incentive problem it has that money that I think just asked you the question earlier would you rather get a salary from the ethereum foundation mhm um you know a fair but you know annual salary with no token incentives that could Moon that could moonshot or work for an L2 where you have a token in or I can work for another L1 my point Chen though you made your choice L1 made a choice I like the real l1's are like public goods right most l2s are like built by for-profit companies you know there's a big difference are startups l1's are you can Rin seek the L2 you can't rein seek an L1 you could just say L1 because obviously the new l1's are basically kind of like l2s the newer ones but um but eth is an L1 which is an established multi-year long existing L1 has just like startups right like once a company goes public or many years in there's less to gain from someone joining that company versus joining an early startup with early options exactly the same model right and the with ethereum as a long standing company per se right the foundation uh doesn't actually ironic the foundation doesn't make a lot of money the way a real blue chip company would it doesn't have the kind of reward incentive to be able to compensate new developers to build charting yeah or to build any kind of scaling um and so they can just kind of ride in their Laur Laurels don't spend any money that the the foundation already has throw parties events and maybe which I'm not sure of I I don't think it's publicly known Maybe have some kind of incentive with an L2 that you know is able to drive uh investment because it now has a potential token Foundation was sitting on like half a billion dollars at some point like I think it's a bit less now I think it's like 300 million or something they have more than enough money toize people to build but they're not spending it on that but because the decision was made that's foundation's money it's not a private company's money it's a big difference between a foundation and a private company but the foundation is still spending that money on developing the protocol and why we we're not right but during the debate you said you would rather get a wage from the foundation than make millions of dollars from your own out that's what you said on stage right no no no no no I I don't think I said that oh okay then I misunderstood you no no no I I think it's just a weird argument is like uh my decision wasn't because I'm I'm being paid more also etherum right now like if you exclude the tokens it doesn't pay bad the pay is quite well in wage though that can't compare to like toen wage can be pretty big I mean even a big wage dep when you join still a wage slave it depends on when you join though I don't know I mean you know at some point a wage can be equal to the payout right it's it's a gray scale it also W wages out there also it's not going to be a billion dollar but but then your argument but then the argument is that the same is going to apply to l2s right now because like if you join arbitrum for example arbitrum already has a token so there's no incentive for you to join arbitrum and build on arbitrum now sure that's why they're just launching new l2s so they can capitalize on those AR is VC pump and dump you know but arbitrum isn't launching Their Own l2s no I'm saying new l2s are being created constantly because those can be monetized but new copy paste Unis SWS can be also created like new copy paste meme coins are created it's I don't think that's that's a good argument like prably on a new L2 right like it doesn't mean yeah that doesn't mean that like uh every single L2 was created for that reason sure no I'm not you can't say none of them were cre I I'm not disagreeing like some are definitely created for that reason I'm not disagreeing with that what I'm saying is like just just because like some are created for that reason doesn't mean that every single one was created sure but but what I'm pointing out here is a massive uh misalignment of incentives to go L2 scaling and not to scale the L1 because if the l1's scaled all the L2 businesses go out of business right like that's a massive perverted incentive ethereum implemented sharding like say egld was able to achieve 100,000 transactions per second this what happened to your L2 basically between between two untrusted parties between two untrusted parties CU arbitrary noes like you can be running a node I don't know who you are I'm running a okay but okay hold on but every blockchain needs to synchronize node between within one consensus so like in salana or monad for example it's within one consensus whereas in a Sharden chain you have two consensus with within The Shard and like one consensus has have to trust you when I grab the data yeah no that's fair that's fair I mean there's different I mean it's sh because the Shad has its own consensus but then there's like the cons above it en system before I can even process a transaction I have to trust the data I get from the different shs to be please do so I have to grab the data from different charge then I have to trust that that's would a few seconds right exactly significantly different paration on yeah that's great and that's why I think that like if you're going monolithic you might as well go Salo or mon St well the the the issue I have with that because I like I I would prefer not to make that trade off of speed my concern with salana is that the upper bound is still too low that's why I prefer shouting so what I think salana actually does in terms of its design it trades speed for capacity at least compared to a shouted system and I'm not convinced that even Sana has enough TPS to be long-term compal TPS with uh and also the notes will just have to be gigantic so it's also trading off some level of it's probably one to 2K TPS max if you exclude consensus transactions and all that no it's more it's more it can do I think I think uh their Peak was like five no no but excluding votes excluding that's Chas no no no main that at some point they they were peing at five so what was it when they started breaking down that's not that's not the figures I've looked at actually SP some time they had they had a peak of like four or 5K okay when was this it's still not now right no no bottleneck now the reason why it's breaking down is oh oh no oh uh there are multiple bottlenecks there I I think their main bottleneck is the Schuler the Schuler is not very well implemented and so a CPU bottle yeah and a ram Bott it's a VM Scher so so like it's the ram is a pretty the algorithm from what I what I understood from talking to like f and Daner people the schedule is not very optimized and so I'm I'm a little bit skeptical from the claims coming out of fire Daner though if I'm being honest I'm but the thing is there are two claims one being made by the fire dancer Tech team which is more realistic yes and then yes because I talked to the tech team which was very different from what I heard from marketing Richard Richard Richard who was like their main Tech guy is like super unhappy with like the numbers that they right yeah it's still impressive and I think I think it's like a Marvel of engineering that I agree with you on that think but I think it might still take a few years before it's done yeah but also like think of it this way if if they can reach like 20,000 TPS that's more than enough for now I I don't disagree I'm skeptical at I don't know if that's I think it's more than enough as a payment now may not be enough for with well the thing is keep in mind s will scale as Hardware improves as well at the current level of adoption I yeah but yeah I mean like Hardware keeps getting bitter I was about to say so we also have More's law that depends on what their B so so for me when I look at ethereum with my investment eyes I'm thinking okay will it be able to meet demand before demand flows to even more scalable chain before Hardware improves so much that it can actually meet that so that's kind of the calculation I'm doing that's the the challenge that which Hardware is a Bott like by um there certain pieces of systems that don't go by more law yeah yeah sure I think generally does but you don't is not not anymore but paralyzation of paralyzation is still for now it's CPU because like but CPU single core is not is not keeping up withw anymore like single CP oh that's why we need paraly RAM is also not right yeah and RAM is a major Bott due to's design as well lot of the expense for node is going into the r CU they're storing all that stuff that then you have to almost kind of [Music] way like that's what I'm saying that's I'm saying to 2K the r size I don't know about this 5K number I'm not actually familiar with that oh yeah yeah they have this like weird seen asking is it the red and then like different things ET it's a bit interesting more6 would would that be expensive expensive I think I I don't know maybe even an advantage I certain things they've done well so for example they have like the transaction the token standards baked into the protocol so you don't have to 20 million uh 20 million different arc2 contract it's based in the protocol so you just inherit the standard contract yeah and then like you have the same you are compliant with the standard so now you because now for example the problem is you can be compliant with the erc20 interface but that doesn't mean that you're compliant with the standard itself so like for example uh Teter is not compliant with the rc20 standard they don't so they don't give SC back right they don't yeah they don't return the the the the false or true during the execution sorry which Su doc20 you mean t is not compined yeah really that's why everybody has to do Hax and smart contracts to basically support that and they also don't have 18 decimals they have decimal so you have to have de decimal recalculation if you support multiple of that stuff but yeah I mean you can deal with it but it's not ideal it's uh but it was not your point your point is you can uh implement it without you can support it without fully implementing it correctly uh or you can just keep to the interface but have crappy implementation Yeah Yeah so basically it's a standard that you just inherit so you don't have to redeploy it I think that's like smart but yeah interesting to see how it will go I think they kind of proved themselves already that they will be around for a while longer uh no def off I I I think that salana is going to be the main eum compor long term maybe monad you know what I feel missing with Solana it's like The Cypher Punk EOS where we're making a better world which is weird with and but at the same time that's What attracted me to ethereum 2015 all these single purpose blockchain sudden ethereum programmable cool let's do that lot of money and took an insane amount of money I see it also like um what happens now to the world with tech Giants dominating calization it's going in a direction where it ends up like a really bad science fiction 80 science fiction movie with exploding next uh the theor we on right and the only thing that can somehow reincarnate yeah uh human values humanism and democracy into the digit yeah CER ethos community and and this is what I find so attractive at ethereum but at the same time that might just be an act or Market good marketing for which I fell but I really still hope that something of that remains true and that we will have the alternative because the tech giant alternative is not going to end up very that's the tough part nicely according to my personal yeah I I think like salana gets criticized for the same thing Bitcoin Max has criticized ethereum is like moving too fast like changing things too fast which I think I think like you can do that early on where you don't have like hundreds of billions of dollars sitting on your CH if they still in the luxury of doing that then they should yeah yeah 100% I think like eum is just set a point where you cannot do that anymore because like if something gets screwed that's it this is what an guy said to me why they not scaling L1 I mean I I get I get scared if I deploy a smart contract with maybe there are a few reasons and I think that's a big reason is because with l2s you're separating the like the failure to like different chains so let's say like if one chain fails only a portion of the fund get not everything like one dominant change that's actually a good aspect of the gardens so it's it's essentially just like separated system within this one system secured by ethereum underneath where like if one thing fails you could you you still have like the other things working this is fragmentation as a feature I I had to talk about it I had it a year ago I don't remember way conference I basically look at waterfall said like there are disadvantages to it but also advantages to it it's the same with like uh do you make your smart contract immutable or do you make it upgradeable because both are security precautions you make immutable so if you get like your key stolen for example no so nobody can steal your funds and you make it upgradeable in case you find a bug so you can protect it as well so both of them are like basically different size of the same coin oh true it's it's really difficult you have Disaster Recovery uh when when you make them upgradable you have to Disaster Recovery me um I actually uh advised uh one or two uh like top 500 projects that got hacked and then because they were upgradeable there was like this whole um onchain analysis thing that could be done and then like reestablishing State and all like horrible still it worked and you cannot do that if there is an exploit in a fully decentralized my contract it's just game over yeah so it's like yeah it's the same thing basically it's like the same the same like coin just the to so you are with scroll right actually you Le no I'm a researcher there researcher okay because you said like hey these uh they are working together and then we had the discussion in the crowd like to what level because yeah you can have lunch once a month and all that working together or you can like very tightly integrate a few telegram groups where like we chat regularly and also certain things are like more slowly happening and certain things are like for example like uh this we adopted uh recently like a lot of evm chaps chain adopted the new standard for a new pre-compile that like evm on L1 doesn't have but L2 EVMS will have which is for a new elliptic curve so the reason why I was saying this was because I think maybe find out we have to ask voluntarily working together if everybody has their own incentives you only do it if you have time left uh but if you have to meet your own deadlines you maybe there are some individuals that are exceptionally uh proactive that also do it and make time for it however if you look at what makes blockchain work or defi work it's that everybody's also financially incentivized to do it which is you have to almost gamify it right why do miners work because they get rewarded for it the whole consensus Mech so actually if we really want l2s to work together as a by default they should be a stifi to do that and the only way place that that can come from is the maybe the L1 or something that sits in between maybe like a sh sequencer but the incentives are already there for certain things so for example like we all have this problem of having to basically retrofit the economics model of L2 into an L1 trans action Ty which results in horrible ux like right now and so we're all incentivized to work together to propose a new transaction type specifically for l2s to like basically avoid that from happening because all of the like arbitrum us poly polygon doesn't like even they just pay it from themselves they just charge a premium and then like deal it uh internally but like us optimism arbitrum ZK to smaller degree but still like we have this problem of like having to retrofit the existing economics model that l2s have into an L1 transaction type which doesn't allow for it so like you have to have do hacky things and yeah and so that's one example there are also like a few others that like we've been discussing so one of the things that is coming from L1 Justin Drake is pushing a lot is like shared sequencing and Bas shared sequencing so yeah that is Al like but there's also like a weekly call between all the L2 developers discussing like different features and stuff that we want to like propose as a standard or something like that that makes me a little bit more hopeful to know that so thank you for that yeah yeah it just started like a couple of months ago into it Paul pain I looked into it it was on a subchain and I started how do do integr subchain like oh like forget this this is yeah big mess this is another form of L2 or Cosmos and then that's why I projecting aval because it's that modular design which is Step Beyond what etherum has scaling to me it's still not good enough Cosmo still sucks M chain Ono I'm sus but avalanch is not really modular is it all of them it makes money on them it's kind of a mixed bag because they have the C chain I mean nothing is purely modular right you just switch sides and realize that you know from a business point of view we make money when people have to swap between these shitty chains you know L2 so all right L2 baby all right more power bridged brid to hell all right that's funny so what was your question uh uh Avalanche something yeah Avalanche just have like like a bunch of Monolithic chains essentially like I don't I don't you said every validor has to validate each chain well like so the C chain you could say is a monolithic chain but they're not really so then they're not scaling us chain you mean the primary Network right yeah well that's the one with the smart contract they have three chains in it C chain xchain and P chain yeah P chains for staking xchain is for exchange which nobody uses exchain like a dag that no one wait xch exchange is simply a utx o chain like Bitcoin no it's a dag exchange a dag it's a dag yeah but it's utxl architecture I don't know what how it works underneath the cover oh I I didn't I don't know whether it's yeah I just yeah it's a d yeah but but but but I would view like I've have put Avalanche in the category of a modular scaling road map because they they don't have plans to scale the C chain more and their primary scal sub they re-engineered uh the underlying Point base completely they wrote the new database Etc and according to them the new upgrade is going to like be much faster in terms of G that they were using before how much faster I don't know the number the paralyzation that they're doing no no no they just hyper optimize database that can only go so far that's like optimizing it without paralyzing but the thing is if you like mon claims I don't know how true it is yeah they claim 10K 10K I I don't know that number yeah I don't know how much but like I I I I I can see how they can like achieve 2 3K yes agreed no no like 2 3K seems to be it's purely and and the thing is even if they didn't do block STM they could still achieve that purely by re-engineering the underlying data base of ethereum possibly so like the reason the reason why ethereum like cannot do that is because like if you do that and you allow more transactions to go through then the state is going to grow large so now you cannot verify it on light machines so that's why etherum doesn't do it but like if ethereum like drops it and for example says that what your thoughts on pruning I mean most full nodes prune right State pruning versus data pruning is different so you can prune transaction data but the problem is the state you have to store the entire state right so that but you don't need the state history you just need the the current state but the current state is large though yeah that's fair so so that can be solved to a certain degree by veral trees which are expected to come in the next upgrade I think because then you can have stateless clients and then you can reconstruct the data from the verical tree right is that no no no so so with stat like the problem now is like for example I assume this way like you have a builder that constructs or all all the block and then sends it to all the validators right does this related to PBS a little bit or you you can connect it yeah it can be separated but like's let's because it makes more sense with mpbs so you have this Builder with like massive Hardware I have mixed feelings about this type I'm so like can you have this one Builder with luxury massive Hardware that can do whatever like whatever computation you need so and every other node just tracks the header and tracks the state rude so what they do is they no they they they when the Builder constructs the block they include all the all the paths to all all the openings of the Merkle tree that are read or written to buy the transactions within that the block so all the Merkle tree openings and then propagates that with the block okay and that way any note that has the route of the previous route can basically reexecute all the transactions without storing State without the storing State yeah it's completely trustless because you have all the openings that you need so you don't need anything else so don't you have to know the state you have to know the state route because uh you have the openings attached to the block so you just need to check whether the openings are correct and then if if any transaction in the block tries to touch an opening that you don't have then you just reject that block it's it's assumed to be an invalid block and so that way you can have really light nodes I I am I have some concern around the uh I always get Builders and proposal mixed up I I think it should be the reverse what his name now but whatever that's that's another point it's view from the perspective of the consensus right yeah well anyway I think the it's the it's the builders that will have the really high number in PBS right so I I'm a bit concerned about that why well I mean now you only have a few Builders of very high node requirements if if you combine it with inclusion lists which are also probably going to come in the next upgrade yeah this is all Avalanche we're talking about no this e yeah so if you combine it with inclusion list yeah now you have a situation where essentially uh let's say I'm I'm I'm a leader for a given round in eum yeah I propose a block yeah and then I include a certain set of transactions that I want to be included within the next block within the next block yes and then the next Builder either can include that or can skip the so if it's basically like a sensorship resistance property that I agree I agree on that so so this is expected to come in the next upgrade as well I think the EIP was already written yeah I'm I'm on the fence side just because it just seems without that I agree with this I think I think the properties are relatively safe and also I I just think like every single uh chain at some point is going to have BBS well it does seem like a bit of a Natural Evolution because what we saw from like you know from Bitcoin to now it's like what we've done with nodes is we've just separated functions more and more into separate areas but it justes seems like a continuation that it just makes sense like if somebody can find a more optimal ordering than me and make me more money why would I do it myself I'll just outs what's a more optimal ordering just as in terms value extracted oh okay yeah what do you think of because what do you think of randomizing transaction ordering to deal with me by worry with that I I think it improves to a certain degree uh it decreases the me but like it doesn't solve it fully and it also probably won't work on a due to a lack of capacity because it makes it easier to spam but that's not even the main problem like my my worry with it is like it incentivizes censorship because now as a builder I'm incentivized to drop transactions include mine and also on top of that I'm incentivized to like uh dep depending on how well the way this would be randomized is that like it would be randomized on the protocol level so basically you don't get to decide on the transaction ordering your anymore the order can't enforce the transaction no nooice yeah choice so I exclude certain transactions from order so let so let's say I see you're doing an Arbitrage for example I'm the leader yeah I see your Arbitrage I'm like I'll drop it I'll put mine instead and even if it's reordered I still know that I'm going to succeed now and so I'm not sure if it's a big problem but like it might it might be a slight Improvement you can't reorder it also like incentivizes yeah that's the flip side of it because like now I I'm incentivized to like if the chain is cheap I can send like 20 transactions and hope that my me transaction after randomization lands first that's true so like you mean 20 instances of the same op transaction you mean like double spins or no no not double spins oh but then if all the transactions are included that's good for the blockchain yeah that's good for the blockchain but but but but that I'm not sure how spam to a certain degree is natural and I think it's unavoidable like how much is good and how much yeah you don't want to create the in you don't want 90% of the block Bas to be consumed by spam the Fe no I I don't know I don't know actually I'm looking on the fence on that one too but it also but it also prevents especially like uh think of it this way if you have like local fee markets now if everyone's spamming the same contract now normal users cannot interact with it because it's all of a sudden expensive yeah yeah there's that much opportunity in spamming the market when the transactions have specific deterministic ordering that just that alone like you know is is enough incentive to spam the market because you created this say random random in the sense that the minor can't choose the ordering it's chosen by vir of some type to SP here is to increase your probility overtaking anyone so the more transactions you are you basically the motivation is I'm going to spam the network with identical transaction ever so slightly different that attaches to a different transaction ID with the hope that I I get the higher yeah so if IAL identical transtion like let's say differentes I see and one of them gets included I increase the probability different sorry sorry different addresses you just like change uh one one not one way yeah one variable just so now get top the list so it's actually not transaction that pay the fee it's actually bun of ones that get so it's a it's a me in the case of in case ofum as well oh yeah true if you don't execute them then it's that's actually better in the sense that you always pay fees that's why I'm not convinced I'm not convinced in general that you I don't think I agree with that that is that big of a Spam I I I think assuming that you have OPP I think inev maybe I can't contrive the situation we have opport you should just spend time in many what J did was pretty coam the a whole bunch oftion you know you're G to fail yeah so so the way work how so they were so when they were competing like an auction an auction right but then um in an auction you pay the highest bid it was probably and when you see those graphs where it says 50 75% right that's what that's what that it's yeah and they double spit Bally but they still make double spending but not a way that would cause drop not in a way that would cause a drop transaction but instead of way that was yeah exactly and that's why like see yeah and that's also why like that's a