> Using Bitcoin as a DA will make tx onchain strictly more expensive than on Bitcoin today the moment any sort of scale usage shows up.
Yes but in this scenario you assume that most of the traffic will still happen on L1 directly ? Assuming most of the traffic move to L2s then it's not the case.
> All of the gadgets you refer to are underexplored and add new layers of complexity that I don't think are fully appreciate because they've never been tested in real world environment.
Fair enough.
> What we know of rollups is that they are permissioned, likely very expensive to operate and consolidate into few service providers that can capture network effect. (observations from ETH).
Yes this is the current state of affairs today, I wont deny it. Everything is about the credibility of the path to decentralisation and to fix those aspects.
>Yes but in this scenario you assume that most of the traffic will still happen on L1 directly ? Assuming most of the traffic move to L2s then it's not the case.
Blocks on L1 will be made full regardless, this will increase on-chain costs which are directly tied to the cost of transacting on the rollup. Bitcoin"s DA is extremely scarce and we know this creates a ceiling for rollups.
AFAIK it's well understood that rollups actually do a poor job of actually scaling though they have undeniable utility advancements.
> AFAIK it's well understood that rollups actually do a poor job of actually scaling though they have undeniable utility advancements.
What ? ZK rollups using state diffs (as opposed to sending compressed tx data) scale extremely well! It's the opposite, the more traffic you have on them the more efficient they are.
If you want trustless ZK rollup you must use DA on Bitcoin.
This does not scale by default. You still need non-witness data therefore you only get 5-10x increase in the throughput depending on who you ask.
sorry missed zeros here say 30-50x.
still not a lot
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
