Questions addressed by Alex and his answers: What are the differences between Optimistic and ZK rollups? ZK rollups are more scalable compared to Optimistic rollups and have stronger security guarantees. Optimistic rollups rely on strong assumptions about security, whereas ZK rollups offer the same security guarantees as layer one. ZK rollups also have shorter finality periods, allowing for quick withdrawals to L1 or other L2s. In terms of extendability, ZK rollups can hide part of the data availability while Optimistic rollups require full data availability. Overall, ZK rollups are a superior technology compared to Optimistic rollups for scaling Ethereum. What are the benefits of ZK rollups over Optimistic rollups? ZK rollups have stronger security compared to Optimistic rollups and offer the same security guarantees as layer one. ZK rollups are more scalable and usable. The finality of ZK rollups can be reached within minutes and allows for access to the main liquidity channel while paying the cost of a very cheap side chain. ZK Porter can hide part of the data whereas Optimistic rollups require full data availability. What are the differences between ZK Rollup accounts and ZK Porter accounts? ZK Rollup accounts are more secure but expensive, while ZK Porter accounts are significantly cheaper but have lower security. Both accounts can interact with each other as they share the same address and liquidity space. With ZK Rollup, the state is held off-chain as a Merkle tree where the leaves represent accounts, while with ZK Porter, the state updates are not published to Ethereum as call data, but instead to a different network of guardians. ZK Rollup accounts are limited by Ethereum block capacity, while ZK Porter accounts are always linear compared to the mainnet costs. ZK Porter users can access DeFi protocols on the ZK Rollup side at a low cost. What are the potential attack scenarios for ZK Porter and ZK Rollup? In the case of ZK Porter, the attackers could theoretically freeze the entire account state if they made up two-thirds of the malicious actors. However, this scenario is unlikely because the attackers would also be freezing their own stake, which would be a significant amount of the total stake token. Additionally, the frozen state would not enable them to steal any funds from the fielders or exploit the situation in any way. Therefore, the attack would be essentially suicidal and not financially rewarding. On the other hand, the attack scenario for Optimistic rollups is comparatively lower in cost and may be politically motivated. While these attack scenarios are unlikely, users are free to choose either ZK Rollup or ZK Porter based on their individual security and fee preferences.
Пікірлер: 1