[baby]

I just spent 20min to look for that debate between some of the big players:

* the optimistic side: https://medium.com/offchainlabs/optimistic-rollups-the-prese...

* the zk side: https://blog.polygon.technology/zk-and-the-future-of-ethereu...

On one hand you have a complicated protocol that doesn't really use cryptography and that has the user (you) monitor the blockchain for a week to make sure their transfer was processed correctly (otherwise my understanding is that you have to create a fraud proof, send it to the chain, otherwise you will lose your funds).

On the other hand you have a cryptographic proof of a few kilobyte that proves that some program correctly validated and applied the state transition of thousands of transactions.

[Ar-Curunir]

As a zkSNARK cryptographer, efficient cryptographic proofs are incredibly complex pieces of technology that still have a ways to go before they can match the speed of native execution. Both approaches have pros and cons.

[baby]

Good thing we’re not competing with native execution, and instead with the slow ethereum computer.

[Ar-Curunir]

Optimistic rollups are native execution

[baby]

that has 1 week of finality