muldbot

@cburniske Waiting on your signal to deploy capital

The Ethereum 5-year roadmap is fairly vague, so we base our high-level understanding on this post: @oK3in1lRQ7-pt7b3j8nQxg/Hk9KBHsGgg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">hackmd.io/@oK3in1lRQ7-pt… In short, Zero combines: 1. The real security of Ethereum's L1 zkEVM roadmap. 2. The horizontal performance scaling of the L2 roadmap. 3. Bespoke Atomicity Zones (STF diversity) 4. Trustless Native Interop between Atomicity Zones. 5. Asymmetric latency (Ultra low latency in one Zone and multi second latency in another) ZK Currently Ethereum has not picked a zkVM to enshrine or stated whether or not it will be one or many zkVMs. They are not building any inhouse at the EF that I’m aware of and are dependent on external teams. We evaluated all zkVM tech and chose the Jolt research project as our foundation because it (1) actually scales linearly with additional GPUs, and (2) with future protocol and system optimizations (e.g., lattices, GPU kernel optimizations) the unit economics will vastly outpace all other zkVMs. We built a inhouse ZK team made up of world class cryptographers, ASIC designers, and GPU developers to make Jolt Pro. Jolt Pro will scale to a THz cluster and will be able to support real time proving for our high performance needs. Statelessness Zero implements something similar to weak statelessness. You can find more context here, along with a brief explanation of why Block Producers aren't a concern for centralization: We do not have strong statelessness (where the beacon chain state is just 32 bytes). That would require many beacon chain messages to include large plaintexts with opening proofs. However, our settlement layer architecture is designed from the ground up for weak statelessness. Architectural Differences In the Ethereum roadmap, they loosely claim to bifurcate the network into builders and attestor/includers to create enshrined shards. This is likely the parallel between Zero and "zk-Ethereum." Our Block Producer has a similar role to a builder, and settlement layer validators do the job of attestor/includer. However, there are still key architectural differences: - Block Production: Our Block Producer is allowed to produce blocks, whereas the builder is not. Our settlement layer design allows the Block Producer to give ultra low-latency preconfirmations during periods of settlement layer asynchrony without introducing additional trust assumptions. This design enables determinism; preconfirmed transactions won't be "reorged out" unless network conditions remain bad for an unrealistically long time. - Validator Load: Our beacon chain essentially only runs consensus. Each validator stores only the minimum set of information to efficiently perform consensus. Proof of Stake and our enshrined governance are moved into the System Zone. This allows our beacon chain validators to achieve what Ethereum refers to as weak statelessness. - Zones and Interop: Our architecture is designed to scale to multiple unique Zones with universal interop. To our knowledge, Ethereum does not have a clear roadmap for sharding the L1 into multiple asynchronous shards like our Zones. ZeroOS enables a diverse set of bespoke zones (trading, payments) that are significantly more efficient than traditional blockchain VMs.

x.com/i/article/2018…