BTC $84,504.68 -0.12%
ETH $2,664.05 -1.19%
BNB $765.31 -0.58%
XRP $1.47 -1.56%
SOL $118.03 +0.16%
TRX $0.3343 -0.30%
DOGE $0.0916 -2.89%
ADA $0.2404 -2.56%
BCH $306.88 -0.98%
LINK $13.62 -5.16%
HYPE $86.63 -1.07%
AAVE $181.37 +6.99%
SUI $1.12 -4.21%
XLM $0.2123 -3.10%
ZEC $1,286.39 -3.41%
AAPL $333.53 +0.93%
AMZN $250.99 +0.92%
GOOGL $343.47 +1.22%
MSFT $517.54 +0.78%
META $727.13 +0.24%
NVDA $233.98 +1.19%
TSLA $371.18 +4.46%
SNDK $1,719.58 -3.42%
INTC $119.39 -0.29%
SPCX $158.84 +6.75%
MU $1,072.83 -1.52%
AMD $632.95 +2.75%
BTC $84,504.68 -0.12%
ETH $2,664.05 -1.19%
BNB $765.31 -0.58%
XRP $1.47 -1.56%
SOL $118.03 +0.16%
TRX $0.3343 -0.30%
DOGE $0.0916 -2.89%
ADA $0.2404 -2.56%
BCH $306.88 -0.98%
LINK $13.62 -5.16%
HYPE $86.63 -1.07%
AAVE $181.37 +6.99%
SUI $1.12 -4.21%
XLM $0.2123 -3.10%
ZEC $1,286.39 -3.41%
AAPL $333.53 +0.93%
AMZN $250.99 +0.92%
GOOGL $343.47 +1.22%
MSFT $517.54 +0.78%
META $727.13 +0.24%
NVDA $233.98 +1.19%
TSLA $371.18 +4.46%
SNDK $1,719.58 -3.42%
INTC $119.39 -0.29%
SPCX $158.84 +6.75%
MU $1,072.83 -1.52%
AMD $632.95 +2.75%

Vitalik: The quality of the underlying proof system of L2 networks is equally important and should gradually enter the second stage as it develops

2025-05-05 14:41:51

ChainCatcher news, in response to community member Daniel Wang's proposed naming label #BattleTested for the L2 network Stage 2, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik posted on the X platform stating: "This is a good reminder: the second stage is not the only factor affecting security; the quality of the underlying proof system is equally important. This is a simplified mathematical model that shows when to enter the second stage:

Each security council member has a 10% independent 'break' chance; we consider activity failure (refusal to sign or key unavailability) and security failure (signing the wrong thing or key being hacked) as equally likely; the goal: to minimize the likelihood of protocol collapse under the above assumptions.

Stage 0 security council is 4/7, Stage 1 is 6/8; please note that these assumptions are very imperfect. In reality, council members have 'common mode failures': they may collude, or all be coerced or hacked in the same way, etc. This makes both Stage 0 and Stage 1 more insecure than shown in the model, so entering Stage 2 earlier than the model suggests is the best choice.

Additionally, note that by turning the proof system itself into multiple independent systems via multi-signature, the probability of proof system collapse can be greatly reduced (this is what I advocated in previous proposals). I suspect that all Stage 2 deployments in the past few years will be like this. Considering this, here is the chart. The X-axis is the probability of proof system collapse. The Y-axis is the probability of protocol collapse. As the quality of the proof system improves, the optimal stage shifts from Stage 0 to Stage 1, and then from Stage 1 to Stage 2. Using a proof system of Stage 0 quality for Stage 2 is the worst.

In short, @l2beat ideally should showcase proof system audits and maturity metrics (preferably proof system implementations rather than the entire aggregation, so we can reuse them) and stages."

Vitalik: The quality of the underlying proof system of L2 networks is equally important and should gradually enter the second stage as it develops

app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.