Ethereum's next goal: the mother of all chains?

Compilation｜Vernacular Blockchain

Between 2015 and 2017, Bitcoin experienced an internal strife known as the “block size war.” This was a key conflict in Bitcoin's history, with both sides arguing over what they believed to be the right strategy for scaling the Bitcoin network to ensure it could meet growing demand over time.

The two factions in this debate are known as big block proponents and small block proponents.

Big block proponents advocate increasing the original size of Bitcoin blocks from 1MB to 8MB. This will increase the throughput of Bitcoin transactions by 8 times while reducing transaction costs.

Small block proponents advocate keeping the block size unchanged, arguing that increasing the block size will jeopardize Bitcoin's decentralization because it will make the Bitcoin blockchain more difficult for ordinary users to run and verify. Small block proponents eventually proposed an alternative path called Segregated Witness (SegWit), which would optimize the number of transactions that can fit within a block rather than directly increasing the block size. Segwit will also open the door to scaling solutions outside of the core Bitcoin protocol, known as Layer 2 scaling.

To better support these views, small block proponents hope to expand in two ways:

-Increase block density so that more transactions can fit in the same space

- Opening the door to hierarchical scaling strategies and creating space for functional off-chain scaling solutions

So this is the point of debate: should we increase the block size? Or should we keep the block restricted and force expansion to higher levels?

01. Modern large block faction and small block faction

The block size debate echoes in the halls of crypto history and still exists today.

We no longer call these factions big block factions or small block factions, nowadays people prefer to find more modern factions to identify with, usually defined by a specific first layer (Layer1). Nonetheless, the different philosophical views expressed by the two camps exist within the culture and belief systems of each Layer 1 sect, whether they are aware of it or not.

In modern times, the debate between small blockers and big blockers continues to be reflected in the debate between Ethereum and Solana.

The Solana camp said that the cost of Ethereum is too high and the speed is too slow to allow global users to get on the chain. Consumers won’t use cryptoassets unless transactions become instant and free, so we need to design as much capacity into Layer 1 as possible.

The Ethereum camp believes that this is a fundamental compromise on decentralization and trusted neutrality, which will produce a fixed set of winners and losers, and ultimately produce the traditional social financial stratification we are trying to get rid of. Instead, we should focus on increasing the density and value of Layer1 blocks and forcing expansion to Layer2.

This debate is not new. The cryptoasset landscape changes, adapts, and evolves, but the small block vs. big block philosophy debate remains.

1) Precision Blocks and Original Blocks

The major innovation of Ethereum from 0 to 1 is the addition of a virtual machine (EVM) inside the blockchain. All chains before Ethereum lacked this key element, and instead attempted to add functionality as individual opcodes rather than a fully expressive virtual machine.

Early Bitcoiner philosophy disapproved of this choice because it increased the complexity and attack surface of the system and increased the difficulty of block verification.

While both Bitcoin and Ethereum are "small block" philosophy chains, the increased scope of virtual machines has still caused a huge divide between the two communities. Fast forward to today, and you can see clear correlations between some of the largest factions in modern blockchain philosophy.

#"Block size" contains two variables: the size of the block and the number of blocks per unit time. In effect, "block size" is "throughput" or "data per second."

Although this view may stay in 2024, I think these four Layer1 blockchains occupy four different types of valid logical conclusions in the Layer1 architecture:

-Bit The Layer 1 design of the coin is super restricted, and all possible measures have been taken to limit the capabilities of Layer 1.

- Ethereum is sufficiently restricted at the Layer 1 level, but by increasing Layer 1 capabilities, it creates room for unlimited block supply at the Layer 2 level.

- Celestia limits its Layer1 capabilities, but maximizes its capacity, forcing more features to be pushed to Layer2, but giving them maximized build space (hence the "build anything" slogan).

- Solana is ultra-unconstrained, maximizing the capacity and functionality of Layer1 while limiting the ability to build higher layers.

2) Functional Escape Velocity

My crypto asset investment thesis is that blockchains that incorporate both small-block and big-block philosophies into their design will ultimately win the crypto gaming throne .

Both the small block faction and the large block faction are correct. They all have valid points. There is no point in arguing about who is right and who is wrong, the key is to build a system that maximizes the advantages of both.

Bitcoin, as an architecture, cannot accommodate both the small block faction and the large block faction. The Bitcoin small block faction claims that expansion will occur on Layer 2, and directs large block supporters to the Lightning Network, telling them that they can still enjoy Bitcoin in the Bitcoin system. However, due to the functional limitations of Bitcoin Layer 1, the Lightning Network was unable to gain sufficient development, and large block proponents had no other options.

An article titled "Base Layer and Functional Escape Velocity" published by Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin in 2019 clarifies these situations and advocates minimally increasing the functionality of Layer1 so that functionality can be generated Layer2.

"While Layer 1 cannot be too powerful, because greater power means greater complexity and therefore greater vulnerability, Layer 1 must also be powerful enough so that Layer 2 protocols can actually be built on top of it."

"Keep Layer1 simple and make up for it in Layer2" is not a universal answer to blockchain scalability and functionality issues because it fails to take into account that the Layer1 blockchain itself must be sufficiently scalable and Functionality is what makes this “building on top” behavior actually possible.” blockism to ensure that the Layer2 layer can achieve the "Functional Escape Velocity".

However, we should not expand the scope of the Layer1 block beyond achieving the "Layer2 Functional Escape Velocity". "To the extent that this will unnecessarily harm the decentralization and trusted neutrality of Layer1. Any additional Layer1 functionality can be pushed to Layer2 layer implementation. We should stick to the small block philosophy.

This Represents a compromise between both parties. Small block proponents must accept that their blocks become (slightly) more difficult to verify, while large block proponents must accept a layered scaling approach once achieved. This kind of compromise will produce synergy.

02. Typical case

1) Ethereum Layer1 - The foundation of trust

Ethereum is the foundation of trust. Layer 1 maintains its small-block philosophy by leveraging advances in cryptography to implement functional escape velocity at higher levels. By accepting fraud proofs and validity proofs from higher levels, Ethereum can effectively make virtually unlimited transactions possible. Transactions are compressed into easily verifiable bundles and then verified by a decentralized network of consumer hardware

This design architecture preserves the crypto industry’s fundamental promise to society, where ordinary validators can check against both experts and elites. Power, everyone has equal access to the system, no privileged parties, no sacred status

The crypto industry has made a philosophical commitment, and Ethereum brings this philosophy to life through cryptographic research and traditional engineering techniques. Transformed into reality.

Imagine that there are small blocks at the bottom and large blocks at the top, that is, decentralized, trustworthy, and verifiable consumer blocks on Layer 2. Highly scalable, instant, and cheap transactions!

Instead of viewing small blocks and large blocks as a horizontal trade-off continuum, Ethereum flips the continuum vertically and trades in security, The large block structure is built on the basis of centralized small blocks.

##Ethereum is the anchor point of small blocks in the big block world. The Forum allows 1000 large block networks to bloom and generate synergies from a consistent and composable ecosystem, in contrast to the fragmentation of many Layer 1s

2) Cosmos: The Lost Tribe##.

#Okay, but where does Cosmos fit into this argument? Cosmos does not strictly adhere to any network design alignment. After all, there is no "Cosmos" network, Cosmos is just an idea.

The idea is a network of interconnected sovereign chains. Each chain has maximum and uncompromising sovereignty, and through shared technical standards, they can be united to a certain extent and abstract away their respective complexities to a certain extent.

译文：Cosmos不仅仅是技术或生态系统，它代表着选择：选择构建一个独立自主、与其他应用程序实现互操作的应用。你的Layer2越独立自主，就越能体现出成为Cosmos应用的选择。

The problem with Cosmos is that it insists on sovereignty so much that the Cosmos chain cannot coordinate and build itself well and share each other's successful experiences. Overemphasis on sovereignty will bring too much chaos to the development of the universe. The overwhelming pursuit of sovereignty inadvertently optimizes anarchy. Lacking a central coordinating structure, the idea of ​​Cosmos has remained niche.

03. Synergy Effect

Similar to Vitalik’s concept of “functional escape velocity”, I believe there is also a phenomenon of “sovereign escape velocity”. In order for the Cosmos idea to truly take hold and thrive, it will need to make some small compromises on network sovereignty to maximize its potential.

The Cosmos concept and the Ethereum Layer 2 vision are basically the same thing. It is a horizontal landscape composed of independent, sovereign chains that have the right to choose their own destiny.

《哈利·波特》中“不可分割的誓约”场景

核心区别在于，以太坊Layer2牺牲了一些自己的主权，将其状态根据发布到了它们的Layer1桥接合约上。这个小改变将之前的内部操作变为了外部操作，通过选择一个中心化的Layer1进行本地桥接的结算。

通过通过密码学证明来扩展Layer1的安全性和结算保障，从以太坊基础发展出来的无限Layer2变成了实质上相同的全球结算网络。这正是小区块和大区块哲学之间出现非凡协同效应的地方。

1）协同效应1：链安全

Layer2链不必为自己的经济安全支付费用，从而消除了基础资产的大部分网络通货膨胀，将每年通货膨胀率的3-7%保留在各自Token的价值内。

以Optimism为例：在其140亿美元的FDV（Fully Diluted Valuation，即完全稀释估值，是指考虑了加密项目的全部已发行Token，包括当前流通的Token以及尚未释放的Token，以确定该项目的总市值。公式：FDV = 当前流通Token的价格 × 总发行Token数量）基础上，假设每年安全预算为5%，这实际上意味着每年有7亿美元未支付给第三方外部安全提供商。实际上，Optimism Mainnet在过去一年中向以太坊Layer1支付了5700万美元的Gas费用，这是在EIP-4844来临之前衡量的数据，该升级将Layer2费用降低了超过95%！

经济安全的成本降至零，仅剩下DA作为Layer2网络唯一有意义的持续运营成本。由于DA成本也接近于零，Layer2的净成本也接近于零。

通过为Layer2链创建可持续性，以太坊可以释放出市场需求的所有链，创造出比Cosmos模型能够产生的更多的总链主权。

Conduit.xyz 可以为您每月建立一条链，价格为3000美元

2）协同效应2：可组合性

Layer2的客户获取成本也变得边缘化，因为将密码学证明结算到Layer1为所有Layer2之间提供了可信的连接。通过保留Layer1的结算保障，用户可以在不必‘试探’每个接触到的链的情况下穿梭于Layer2。自然而然地，用户也不会进行这种活动，而是提供链抽象服务的服务提供商（桥接、意图填充器、共享序列器等）可以提供更强大的服务，如果他们对自己正在构建业务的基础拥有毫不妥协的安全保障。

此外，随着许多Layer2链的上线，每个Layer2都会吸引其自己的边缘用户进入更大的以太坊生态系统，从而创造出一个集群效应。由于所有Layer2都会将其用户添加到“堆”中，随着网络的增长，以太坊用户的总量变得更大，使边缘Layer2链更容易找到足够的用户。

<img src="https://img.php.cn/upload/article/000/000/164/171332719796115.png" alt="Ethereums next goal: the mother of all chains?">译文：以太坊因其碎片化而备受批评，但它实际上是一个由组合链组成的网络。“许多L1”才是真正的碎片化。

以太坊受到“分裂”的批评，这其实是一种讽刺，因为它与实际相反，以太坊是唯一通过密码学证明将其他主权链串联在一起的网络。相比之下，众多的Layer1空间是完全和彻底的分裂，而以太坊的Layer2空间仅仅受到延迟的影响而出现分裂。

3）协同效应3：记账单位

所有这些好处都聚焦在ETH作为资产的共识点上。以太坊生态系统周围的网络效应越多，ETH作为的助推力就会越强大。

ETH成为其所有Layer2网络的账户单位，因为每个Layer2网络通过将安全性集中到以太坊Layer1中产生了规模经济效应。

简单来说，以太坊的分布式结算网络的不断增长使得ETH成为了货币。

04、结论

以太坊项目追求的是一种统一的架构，它涵盖了可能的最广泛的用例。这是一个可以胜任一切的网络。

小而强大的Layer1结合在一起，是打开Layer2中最宽广设计空间所需的基础。早期比特币支持者常说：“如果它有用，最终会在比特币上建立。”我完全相信这个概念，只是我认为以太坊是更优化的网络，因为这是以太坊一直在为之优化的目标。

保持加密货币行业的价值观发生在Layer1。

去中心化、抗审查、无需许可和可信中立性。如果这些可以在L1上得到保持，那么它们可以在无限数量的L2中被功能性地扩展，这些Layer2与Layer1进行了密码学上的绑定。

在加密货币的王座之战中，以太坊的核心投资论点是，任何其他Layer1要么可以更好地作为Layer2构建，要么作为L1的功能集成到其中。

你想要光速共识吗？作为Layer2会更快。

你想要完全私密的区块链吗？作为Layer2会更有效。

DA作为区块链？为什么不仅仅是在Layer1上得到确立。

最终，一切都将成为以太坊树上的分支。

The above is the detailed content of Ethereum's next goal: the mother of all chains?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!