1 year ago
Layer 1 (L1) and furniture 2 (L2) blockchains connection antithetic approaches to scaling distributed ledger networks. While developers of L1 blockchains absorption connected improving the basal protocol, L2 programmers person moved transactions off-chain to alteration faster and cheaper transactions.
What Are Layer One Blockchains?
Layer 1 oregon L1 refers to a basal blockchain protocol similar Bitcoin oregon Ethereum. These networks run connected a decentralized ledger secured by proof-of-work (PoW) mining oregon proof-of-stake (PoS) staking. L1 chains specified arsenic Bitcoin and Ethereum connection unparalleled security. However, during highest times, some of these chains grapple with sluggish transaction speeds and steep fees.
Developers from respective L1 networks are moving to amended furniture 1 scaling done methods similar increasing artifact size, sharding, and introducing proof-of-stake consensus. However, important furniture 1 upgrades necessitate coordination among node operators and tin instrumentality years to implement. Some blockchains mean to usage L2 protocols arsenic either a impermanent oregon semipermanent solution.
What Are Layer Two Blockchains?
Layer 2 oregon L2 solutions instrumentality vantage of the information of an existing furniture 1 blockchain portion enabling faster and cheaper transactions off-chain. Then the information is summarized and settled connected the L1, but that’s not ever the case.
Here are immoderate cardinal L2 solutions:
Lightning Network for Bitcoin
Bitcoin’s Lightning Network (LN) is simply a second-layer scaling solution designed to facilitate faster, low-cost transactions connected the Bitcoin blockchain (L1). It operates connected apical of Bitcoin’s basal layer, allowing for instant payments by circumventing the request for artifact confirmations.
Transactions connected the Lightning Network hap off-chain successful outgo channels betwixt users. Only transmission unfastened and adjacent transactions are recorded connected the Bitcoin blockchain. Participants tin transact aggregate times wrong these channels, reducing congestion and fees connected L1.
Critics people LN for its prevalent usage of custodial wallets, arsenic these request users spot place successful 3rd parties to grip their money. Moreover, the off-chain method poses a risk: if nodes deficiency due backup, it could trigger an irrevocable nonaccomplishment of funds.
Loopring and ZK-Rollups for Ethereum
Loopring uses zero-knowledge rollups (ZK-rollups) to batch hundreds of transactions off-chain and make a cryptographic impervious verifying their validity. This impervious is submitted to furniture 1 (Ethereum), avoiding the request to process each transaction on-chain.
Polygon ZKEVM besides uses ZK-rollup exertion to connection precocious throughput Ethereum transactions with little fees. On the hazard side, immoderate judge that relying heavy connected ZK-rollups tin present centralization risks arsenic validators and sequencers go cardinal to the system.
ZK-rollups are besides complex some successful presumption of their theoretical underpinnings and implementation. This complexity tin pb to imaginable vulnerabilities if not implemented correctly oregon thoroughly vetted.
Optimistic Rollups
Optimistic rollups similar Optimism and Arbitrum connection akin throughput improvements by processing transactions off-chain. However, they instrumentality a antithetic attack than ZK-rollups for settling information connected furniture one.
While ZK-rollups cryptographically beryllium validity, Optimistic rollups presume transactions are valid and lone settle/dispute transactions connected furniture 1 if needed. This requires a abstracted fraud-proof process.
Optimistic rollups are besides analyzable and conscionable similar ZK-rollups the tech tin pb to unforeseen vulnerabilities oregon bugs. Another critique is the hold successful withdrawals from an Optimistic rollup backmost to the main chain.
Starknet and Validium
Starknet leverages Stark proofs to validate transactions off-chain for aboriginal colony connected Ethereum. Validium platforms similar Boba Network besides determination contract execution off-chain but don’t settee backmost to furniture one.
Starknet and Validium critiques see complexity, trust assumptions, and computational intensity. Moreover, relying connected circumstantial entities for off-chain information retention tin pb to centralization, perchance making the strategy much susceptible to attacks oregon manipulation.
The Scalability Trilemma
No solution offers speed, security, and decentralization successful adjacent measure. Layer 2 aims for transaction velocity without sacrificing the information of furniture one. However, immoderate judge decentralization is mislaid by moving computations off-chain.
Others importune the perfect semipermanent solution apt combines layers 1 and two. Meanwhile, galore crypto enthusiasts stay firmly rooted successful the content that lone L1s clasp value successful the onward journey.
In summary, furniture 2 platforms connection a antithetic way to scalability by handling transactions off-chain, portion immoderate inactive payment from the robust information exemplary of furniture one. To immoderate this equilibrium of velocity and information makes furniture 2 solutions appealing for blockchain adoption.
While immoderate disregard L2s arsenic a implicit discarded of clip oregon deem them wholly pointless, the sermon stretches on. Yet, done years of discussion, enactment continues to heighten some layers to execute the optimum blend of scalability, security, and decentralization.
What bash you deliberation astir the differences betwixt L1 and L2 blockchain technology? Share your thoughts and opinions astir this taxable successful the comments conception below.
English (US) 