people simply aren't bullish enough on zkVMs like @RiscZero and @SuccinctLabs
zk is not just essential for scaling blockchains + interop which is already huge, but also for privacy, and not just crypto privacy but in web2/trad tech too
"I think that all current staking designs of major assets are basically all derivatives of the Cosmos hot tub in Mexico design"-- @zmanian on the Celestia research forum. lmaooo 🤣
This is a good list of things the industry currently takes for granted that are worth re-examining.
Many of them align with modularity: • Geographic decentralization is important -> rollups can take advantage of geographic centralization for extremely low latency • BFT consensus is a prerequisite -> sequencer preconfs are probably good enough finality for most users • Sharding is bad -> parallelizing execution by rollups enables massive scaling, interop is getting 10x better • All apps should be treated the same by the chain -> each app can be completely customized and vertically integrated as a rollup
Many of these ideas will be tested by Celestia and its ecosystem over the coming few years.
Pretty interesting reply thread btw @sam_battenally and @aeyakovenko about latency vs validator distro/MCP.
Here's the thinking: If you want to minimize your round trip time (RTT) you need to geographically colocate your node with a proposer.
In a single sequencer or geo-concentrated validator setup, this is trivial and extremely fast since you just colocate with the sequencer/validators and you're done.
In a geo-distributed single leader setup your average RTT would be the average stake-weighted RTT between all validators, which would end up being pretty slow no matter where you are.
But with MCP you could get consistently low RTTs by colocating in an area where there is a concentration of validators & stakeweight such that you have a high likelihood of there being at least one proposer there per slot.
This seems to get you the best of both worlds: geographically decentralized validators, good CR, low latency.
However I'm still confused how conflicting txs confirmed by two different proposers in MCP get resolved. It seems that the guarantee that you get from a proposer in MCP is fundamentally different from what a single sequencer or single leader gives you.
→ enough DA throughput to support CLOBs and consistently ships scaling upgrades on schedule (21.33MB/s on mamo-1 testnet) → the most secure with ~$1B slashable stake, data availability sampling support, and blobstream for bridging (there will be a lot of funds at risk) → the most reliable/battle tested alt-DA with the most users in prod (any downtime would be devastating for a CLOB) → the best brand, best DevEx, most integrations, and strongest ecosystem support out there
Crypto needs its ChatGPT moment, where overnight it will go from esoteric niche nerdy tech to mainstream consumer application that people immediately grasp the value of.
It feels like we're close. Someone just needs to crack the puzzle.
Connectez-vous pour découvrir d’autres contenus
Découvrez les dernières actus sur les cryptos
⚡️ Prenez part aux dernières discussions sur les cryptos
💬 Interagissez avec vos créateur(trice)s préféré(e)s