Did Ethereum Silently Give Up On Plasma
Dragonfly Research proclaimed Plasma to be dead, noting that the Ethereum (ETH) community is converging on Optimistic Rollup, despite initial enthusiasm. The news comes in stark contrast to earlier claims by Plasma Group arguing that the technology was moving into production phase.
The history of Plasma
The original paper detailing the Plasma proposal was published in August2017.
In essence, Plasma was conceived as a network of sidechains attached to the main Ethereum blockchain. They would have allowed offloading of the majority of the transactional load, improving scalability by orders of magnitude. In theory.
A common problem of sidechains is the requirement of trust in its operators. Plasma attempted to solve this by ensuring the security of users’ funds even when the majority of sidechain operators misbehaves.
But there were significant practical issues to this approach, analysts explain.
Users would have had to continuously verify the sidechain,which is a computationally intensive task.
Furthermore, in the event that the sidechain needed to be “evacuated” due to a security compromise, its entire history would need to be posted on the main Ethereum blockchain.
This would have overloaded the network to a degree it was unable to handle.
A series of improvements such as Minimum Viable Plasma and Plasma Cash were developed later in 2018.
But even if they solved some of the previous issues, they introduced others that were just as serious.In 2019, researchers argued that the Ethereum community had begun exploring a new class of layer two solutions named “rollups.
”The first solution, named zk-Rollups, uses zero-knowledge proofs to guarantee the correctness of all the transactions on the sidechain. However, the computationally intensive cryptography behind this solution and the impossibility of using smart contracts constituted serious drawbacks.
The second iteration, named Optimistic Rollup, removes the need for zero-knowledge proofs by changing the principle behind the consensus rules.
Instead of verifying each transaction, the system simply assumes that all of them are valid.
The users, instead of proving the correctness of the entire sidechain, must intervene only when they see an invalid transaction by submitting a “fraud proof.”
According to Dragonfly researchers, this is the solution that the Ethereum community is currently converging on.
No obituaries for Plasma
The alleged pessimism surrounding Plasma among ETH developers has been generally hidden from public view throughout 2019.As late as June 2019, when the transition into rollups was well underway according to Dragonfly, Vitalik Buterin wrote in a blog post that “both scalability solutions have a bright future ahead of them,” referring to Plasma and sharding.
Read the full topic at
https://cointelegraph.com/news/did-ethereum-silently-give-up-on-plasma
Follow me on
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/crypto-expert20
IF you be an admin for your telegram group you can order from the link
The history of Plasma
The original paper detailing the Plasma proposal was published in August2017.
In essence, Plasma was conceived as a network of sidechains attached to the main Ethereum blockchain. They would have allowed offloading of the majority of the transactional load, improving scalability by orders of magnitude. In theory.
A common problem of sidechains is the requirement of trust in its operators. Plasma attempted to solve this by ensuring the security of users’ funds even when the majority of sidechain operators misbehaves.
But there were significant practical issues to this approach, analysts explain.
Users would have had to continuously verify the sidechain,which is a computationally intensive task.
Furthermore, in the event that the sidechain needed to be “evacuated” due to a security compromise, its entire history would need to be posted on the main Ethereum blockchain.
This would have overloaded the network to a degree it was unable to handle.
A series of improvements such as Minimum Viable Plasma and Plasma Cash were developed later in 2018.
But even if they solved some of the previous issues, they introduced others that were just as serious.In 2019, researchers argued that the Ethereum community had begun exploring a new class of layer two solutions named “rollups.
”The first solution, named zk-Rollups, uses zero-knowledge proofs to guarantee the correctness of all the transactions on the sidechain. However, the computationally intensive cryptography behind this solution and the impossibility of using smart contracts constituted serious drawbacks.
The second iteration, named Optimistic Rollup, removes the need for zero-knowledge proofs by changing the principle behind the consensus rules.
Instead of verifying each transaction, the system simply assumes that all of them are valid.
The users, instead of proving the correctness of the entire sidechain, must intervene only when they see an invalid transaction by submitting a “fraud proof.”
According to Dragonfly researchers, this is the solution that the Ethereum community is currently converging on.
No obituaries for Plasma
The alleged pessimism surrounding Plasma among ETH developers has been generally hidden from public view throughout 2019.As late as June 2019, when the transition into rollups was well underway according to Dragonfly, Vitalik Buterin wrote in a blog post that “both scalability solutions have a bright future ahead of them,” referring to Plasma and sharding.
Read the full topic at
https://cointelegraph.com/news/did-ethereum-silently-give-up-on-plasma
Follow me on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/cryptoexpert20
IF you be an admin for your telegram group you can order from the link
Comments
Post a Comment