zkPorter: Breakthrough in L2 expansion

A massive migration to Layer 2 is about to happen. As the protocol moves from the Ethereum base layer to Optimistic rollups to EVM-compatible zkRollups, many hope that we can finally make on-chain gas fees manageable. But everyone working on scaling ethereum knows the industry's dirty secret: even with rollups, we'll probably end up back where we started. This is because any real increase in throughput is quickly eaten up by induced demand. Rollups can only bring about a linear increase in throughput - all data still has to be broadcast to all full nodes. However, in order to achieve true scaling, we need to achieve an exponential increase in throughput. This is why we consider zkPorter to be a major breakthrough. It has 20,000+ TPS and is more secure than Optimistic rollups. More importantly, it will go live on the mainnet with zkSync 2.0 in 6 months. Why rollups are not enough for scaling needs? In October 2020, Vitalik published the article "Ethereum Roadmap Centered on Rollup", in which he stated that if all L1 transaction activities are migrated to rollups, then the estimated transaction volume per second of the Ethereum network can reach About 3000 pens. This speculation will soon become a reality: both optimistic and zkRollups now support EVM compatibility, which means that applications can be quickly and easily migrated from L1 to L2. Ethereum is growing explosively and exponentially. In one year, DeFi users grew from 150,000 to 1.8 million — but gas fees grew 16x faster! (The transaction fee on Uniswap has increased from $0.20/transaction to $36/transaction). The Aave community voted to deploy the protocol to the zkSync v2 testnet: Jinse Finance reported that Aave community members voted to deploy the protocol to the zkSync 2.0 testnet. The Aave proposal was originally proposed by Matter Labs and received overwhelming support from community members. (CoinDesk) According to previous news, the proposal to deploy Aave V3 to the zkSync 2.0 test network is being voted on, aiming to support Aave's multi-chain mission and expand the cross-chain experience, and the voting will continue until November 2. [2022/11/3 12:11:20]Why? Because any increase in scalability will bring growth in financial activities/transactions and new use cases. Let's take a look at what happened at the same time in the past year ➤ DEX monthly transaction volume: 1.72 billion USD → 67 billion USD ➤ DeFi total lock-up volume: 700 million USD → 80 billion USD (increased by 11000%!) ➤ In a month Inside, the sales volume of OpenSea: $5 million → $100 million Compared with the Ethereum main network, optimistic rollups will only expand by about 25 times, while zkRollups will expand by about 100 times. Before we know it, we will be back to the starting point: gas fees and the cost of using Ethereum are still unaffordable for most ordinary users. The crypto industry will soon go mainstream. In a world of 3.8 billion smartphones (compared to Metamask's 3 million monthly active-zce users), we need to increase the scalability of the Ethereum network by a factor of 1,000 to handle the demands that follow. This gap in between led us to build zkPorter. zkPorter: The engine that promotes the large-scale application of cryptocurrencies In zkSync 2.0, the L2 state will be divided into two parts: zkRollup with data availability on-chain and zkPorter with data availability off-chain. Both parts are composable and interoperable: contracts and accounts on zkRollup will be able to seamlessly interact with accounts on zkPorter and vice versa. That's right! This way, from the user's point of view, the only perceivable difference is a 100x reduction in fees for zkPorter accounts. The total value of zkSync bridging storage exceeds 160,000 ETH: Jinse Finance reported that according to data from Dune Analytics, the total value of Ethereum Layer 2 expansion solution zkSync cross-chain bridging storage has exceeded 160,000 ETH, which was 160,155 ETH when this article was written. The number of bridge transactions is 354,726 users. [2022/8/18 12:34:37] Imagine: Uniswap deploys smart contracts on the zkRollup side, and retail users on zkPorter accounts can swap tokens with a transaction fee of <$0.03. How did it get so cheap? This is because the vast majority of rollup fees come from the cost of publishing data on the Ethereum mainnet. The zkPorter account can do thousands of swaps on the contract deployed by Uniswap, but only needs to release a single data update to the Ethereum mainnet. The data availability of zkPorter accounts will be secured by zkSync token holders (i.e. “Guardians”). They will track the state on zkPorter by signing blocks to confirm the data availability of the zkPorter account. Guardians stake zkSync tokens to participate in PoS, so any failure in data availability will result in them being slashed. As such, this provides a cryptoeconomic guarantee of data availability. It is worth noting that PoS on zkSync is much more secure than PoS on other systems such as sidechains. This is because the guardians of zkSync are inherently powerless: the guardians cannot steal funds. They can only stop producing blocks. And in this case, users will still be able to withdraw their funds. Each user can choose the security threshold of their own funds. Users can choose to stay on rollup entirely if they want to keep all data availability on-chain. But if some users are more concerned about fees, then they can choose to use zkPorter (we guess traders and new users are most likely to use zkPorter). This kind of architecture that can choose to store data on-chain or off-chain is called Volition. L2 DeFi protocol zkLend completes $5 million in seed round financing, Stark Ware and Three Arrows Capital and other investments: Golden Finance News, StarkNet-based lending agreement zkLend completes $5 million in seed round financing, investors include StarkWare, Three Arrows Capital, Alameda Research , MetaCartel DAO, Amber Group, Genesis Block Ventures, etc. zkLend will launch its permissionless retail lending product Artemis in the third quarter of 2022, and its institutional product Apollo in early 2023. In addition, zkLend will issue a native token named ZEND to encourage users to increase liquidity, but the specific date has not been announced yet. (Decrypt) [2022/3/29 14:25:01] This will appeal to zkPorter for applications that are not economically viable on L1s or even traditional rollups solutions. Now, these applications can be built on Ethereum and serve Ethereum users. zkPorter vs optimistic rollups All this is possible thanks to the cryptography of zero-knowledge proofs. Optimistic rollups achieve such a large-scale expansion in the way of zkPorter. If optimistic rollups put data availability off-chain, a malicious operator could steal all funds in the rollup without being challenged by anyone. At the same time, zkPorter has stronger security than Optimistic rollups. To understand why, we next briefly outline the costs and benefits of a potential zkPorter attack. 1) Attack cost As of today, the cost of a 51% attack on Optimistic rollup is less than $70 million (after Ethereum migrates to PoS, this will not be a big problem). On the other hand, to make data on zkPorter unusable, an attacker would need to amass an amount equivalent to 2/3 of all zkSync staked tokens (almost certainly over $70M). Furthermore, since the attacker will experience significant slippage when purchasing tokens (and pledged tokens cannot be purchased), it is much more expensive to launch such an attack than the spot price. AC added a zkftm page on its Github homepage, or prepared to develop new dApps: According to news on February 22, AC added a project page named zkftm to its Github homepage. The page introduction is zkftm: building infinitely scalable dApps. [2022/2/22 10:08:05] 2) Attack income If the optimistic rollup is successfully attacked, the hacker can steal all the funds in the rollup. This greatly increases the incentive to attack. And if a hacker attacks zkPorter, ta cannot directly steal funds: even if the attack is successful, the hacker can only stop producing blocks, but cannot steal users' funds. This difficulty in monetizing attacks greatly reduces the motivation for such attacks. Building on zkPorter zkPorter is coming. The Matter Labs team is working hard on R&D to have a production-level release within 6 months. Soon, we will be able to start eating the cake we made. zkPorter will be available in zkSync 2.0 - our next generation smart contract platform that will support Solidity. Our goal is to launch a public testnet in May and launch the mainnet later in the summer. At the same time, users can also use zkSync 1.x for payment purposes (the main network will be launched in June 2020). In a few weeks, 1.x will support transactions as well as NFT transactions. Want to contact our team in advance or want to get support from our team? Contact us: hello@zksync.io Help us bring Ethereum to billions of users zkSync is a project with a mission. If you agree with our values, vision and purpose-driven culture, join us! Hot jobs we're currently hiring (see web for full list): ➤ Senior Software Engineer (Rust, Solidity) ➤ PR Executive (Storytelling) Special thanks to Haseeb Qureshi for proofreading and advice! Vitalik: zkSync, the second-layer solution of Ethereum, launched the zkSync 1.x test network, which supports NFT and exchange functions: zkSync, the second-layer solution of Ethereum, announced the launch of the zkSync 1.x test network. Users can try NFT and swap (Swap) functions on the Rinkeby Beta and Ropsten test networks, including swapping ERC-20 tokens, minting, transferring and swapping NFTs, and withdrawing NFTs to L1. In addition, zkSync 1.x mainnet upgrade will be launched in May, including exchange, NFT, new event system and permissionless token list, and will go live after a 2-week upgrade timelock (timelock). [2021/5/25 22:41:12]> zkPorter has a stronger security guarantee than Optimistic rollups. I think this statement is inappropriate. Assuming the code for both schemes is bug-free (in my opinion, optimistic rollups have less risk of bugs in the short term, but that's another question), I'd prefer to put my assets on optimistic rollups rather than On a system that stores data availability off-chain. Take a look at the argument of this article: > As of today, the cost of 51% computing power attack on Optimistic rollup is less than 70 million US dollars. The data cited here is listed by Starkware, and the view is basically this: An attacker can rent enough computing power to launch a 51% attack at a cost of $30/hour. If they lasted a week of censorship attacks, the cost was around $50 million. There are two mistakes in this argument: ➤ The hashrate rental market is not very liquid, if someone tries to rent so much computing power, there will be two situations: either there is not that much rentable hashrate, or they are trying The price was greatly increased when renting, and all users were warned. In particular, the webpage (https://www.crypto51.app/) predicts the cost of using Nicehash to launch an attack, but the webpage itself shows that Nicehash can only lend 3% of the Ethereum network’s hashrate. Greek value. ➤ Furthermore, despite the 51% attack, the community will not sit still. Instead, the community will coordinate an emergency fork to bring down the attacker, which can be achieved within a week (the hard fork to solve the Shanghai DoS attack took only 6 days, and the solution to the 51% attack is even easier because This is a soft fork).

Tags：

Huobi App Download