Read the Original Article on Linkedin:
The primary scaling challenges in blockchain are computation and data availability. Computation, which is stackable, allows for limitless scaling through fraud-proofs and zk-SNARKs, especially with recursive proofs that merge multiple proofs into one mentioned in my last post. On the other hand, data availability is not stackable, limiting scalability, as it must be on-chain for user access and verification.
Vitalik Buterin addresses the feasibility of quadratic scaling, aka stacking the same rollup structures (L3 on top of L2). He questions the purpose of L3s, given the inherent non-stackable nature of data availability. He argues the purpose of L3s from a cost-per-transaction perspective and suggests an alternative approach to achieve the same cost savings without implementing a complex full EVM system that requires token incentivization in the middle. I will break down his argument into two simpler parts, making it more accessible for readers to grasp.
L3s, as outlined by Starkware, have distinct purposes compared to the trustless and general-purpose scaling of L2 rollups. They provide customized functionality for specific use cases, enable custom scaling (non-EVM computation), and facilitate weakly-trusted scaling (validiums). The central debate revolves around whether a three-layer structure (L3) is essential to achieve these goals or if these layers (validiums, and privacy systems, and customized environments) can be anchored directly to L1.
Vitalik’s argument centers on cost considerations in the context of a three-layer blockchain model. While this model offers the advantage of housing an entire sub-ecosystem within a single rollup, avoiding the need for expensive cross-chain transactions through Layer 1 (L1), it comes with practical challenges. Specifically for optimistic rollups, there is longer wait times of 14 day total for deposit and withdrawal when tokens are not issued on L1. Comparing this to ZK rollups, which eliminate the week-long fraud proof window, he notes that the batch transaction fixed cost incurred by both rollups schemes remain high.
In my next post (Part 2), I will explain his L3 transaction cost calculation and the proposed alternative “batch mechanism” as the middle layer approach.
Interested in learning more about blockchain’s real-world adoption from both a technical infrastructure and strategic perspective? Follow me on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter - @ceciliasubmari1) and comment on the post below. I am always up for a good discussion!