|
|
|
|
|
|
by rfd4sgmk8u
1944 days ago
|
|
|
zkrollups, like all rollup technologies just kick the can down the road. Not every transaction needs to live on a blockchain! This is the fundamental point that folks miss. LN is about true 'off-chain' in that a blockchain is not needed to provide a probabilistic model to funds.
Do you see how this is similar to MW cut-through, in that a probabilistic model is used to store funds on chain? Imagine all the ZKrollup solutions and throw away the sidechain. Rollup is just another name for sidechains. I agree, the sidechain model works today. The BTC Pegged liquid network also does zero knowledge (confidential transactions) exchanges of BTC between exchanges. But ultimately it is still kicking the can down to another blockchain.
Rollups are not 'off-chain', They are on another chain. We need to think beyond this for true scaling. |
|
|
If you're really set on payment/state channel networks like the Lightning Network (Bitcoin), Raiden (Ethereum) or Connext (Ethereum), you can put them, ON A ZK-ROLLUP!
You get a 100X scalability boost, without increasing the block size, which makes payment/state channel opens/closes a couple orders magnitude lower, which massively increases a payment channel user's options and improves the functionality of the payment channel network. ZkRollups also reduce the cost of on-chain payments which lets a user switch to on-chain for an application that the zkRollup-based PCN is ill-suited.
All-in-all, reducing the cost of on-chain transactions, as zkRollups do, have significant advantages, so there is absolutely no reason to not adopt them.
And Liquid is a centralized sidechain dependent for its security on trusted third parties, and completely incomparable to zkRollups, which have 100% of the security of the mainnet and are only reliant on 51% of the hashrate being honest for security.