/biz/ - Business & Finance

these are rollups not snarks

rollups can be challenged.
the more people understand that they more it'll be abused. slowing the chain down. everyone fucken knows this which is why zk snarks are being talked about and trailed so heavily.

>>49921156
>orders of magnitude incorrect view on the scalability of rollups
does he mean this as a good thing or bad thing?
are they really the final solution? or is he saying they arent gonna work at a large scale

>>49921313
Bad. DYDX moved from Starknet to App specific chain on Cosmos because Starknet can't scale.

It's horrible news for Ethereum considering their whole vision is relying on those third parties to scale

>>49921187
Optimistic Rollups are challenged. ZK rollups do proofs to verify everything.

I own 0 eth because I was late to the game. But the scaling issue, slow transactions and VERY HIGH fees is ensuring that eth cannot be mass adopted. Other chains handle this better, by far!

That's why bitcoin's first mover advantage is good for bitcoin, because it's retardedly simply and is not trying to be anything expect a slow mining network with a "store of value" gimmic, whilst eth and 99.99999% of the rest of the market are tech bets. And eth is falling behind rapidly.

>>49921156
Hes talking about zk you fucking retard
Arbitrum already won

bullish for mina

>>49921156
Nah DyDx wants to build free orderbook limit orders - that won't happen on a rollup any time soon.
Rollups will still be the best for interoperability, general use, defi, NFT shit...

>>49922908
optimistic rollups are inherently more expensive than zk rollups as they have to post signatures on L1 for data availability while ZK rollups don't have to.

>>49921156
they want speed at the expense of decentralization and security, so whatever fuck them

how is this board anti-optimistic rollup and pro-chainlink?

>>49924620
I don't think anyone here is anti rollup, just aware that it's a band-aid solution currently
Chainlink is system agnostic and can also be used on cosmos or wherever

Eth not needed.

>>49921156
>It seems like Ethereum need to start thinking about scaling on their own
They will not think about this. The network is beholden to high time-preference stakeholders and will continue squeezing speculators for every drop it can as its development death-spiral deepens.

>>49924620
Oracles are more widely applicable and important than ETH's attempts to put band-aids on its inefficiency.

>>49921187
zk snarks have their own problem, it's not just plug and play like a rollup, circuits have to be designed for every possible Dapp

And another thing that worries me about them is the key ceremony shit, I don't trust that at all

>>49921156
None of the other chains "scale" without making huge compromises on security or decentralization. See the stinky piece of shit that Solana is.
Arbitrum and Optimism will bring fees to an acceptable levels for plenty of applications which is already acceptable.
IT is like medicine or engineering, the progress is incremetal but compounds, OR will scale ETH x100 then something will scale it for another x100 in the coming years, etc...

>>49921345
Dydx is ultra centralized and tries to have thr UX of a CEX on-chain which is simply not realistic today. It's like these VR headsets in the 90s, texhnology just isn't mature for that.

>>49924977
>Arbitrum and Optimism will bring fees to an acceptable levels for plenty of applications which is already acceptable.

This. After eip4488 the fees will be lower than ZKs and evm equivalence already exists. ORUs are actually really great they just sick dick at marketing them to normal retards

Bullish for Cosmos, AVAX and LINK

Yet eth will still surpass 10k per Eth in the next 5 years

>>49921621
>But the scaling issue, slow transactions and VERY HIGH fees is ensuring that eth cannot be mass adopted. Other chains handle this better, by far!
Other chains do not handle it better, they just use varyingly higher levels of centralized nodes. I don't own any ETH and don't even like the project, but you see this
>well X says they go 10 times faster than Bitcoin/Ethereum, so that means they solved scaling!
when in reality they just increase the block size/gas limit and don't give a shit that their entire """decentralized""" network is ran by a dozen nodes operating in big datacenters somewhere.

The "better than ETH" coins people bring up either
>rely on centralized nodes and have no point to their existence outside of just using a SQL database
or
>only have low fees and fast transaction times because almost no one actually uses the network

so rollups are like magnavox? im so going all in eth, on man, don't try and stop me.

>>49921156

Fucking retards.

>>49925608
>muh decentralization
how can you expect to run the world's economy on a bunch of laptops, cell phones, and raspberry pis?

>>49928417
you're going to get A LOT of shit for posting this, but it's true.

>>49924977
>huge compromises on security or decentralization

Nothing about the app chain architecture prevent chains from borrowing as much validators as the protocol allows. The "shared security" Rollups maxis (they're ETH maxis if we're being honest) keep circle jerk about is extremely susceptible to implementation bugs due to extreme complexity, It's nice and all to care about theoretical security but in reality 99% of bugs and hacks caused due to engineering "mistakes" rather than taking advantage of X protocol flawed design. This whole mechanism even in its maturity seems like incredibly risky experiment

>>49928499
how can you expect to run the world's economy with little factories everywhere instead of one giga factory?

>>49928720
imagine every state in the us, or every country in the world, having their own state-run node. would that be decentralized enough for you? or would you only be satisfied if every phone acted as a node? What, in that little brain of yours, would a sufficiently decentalized system look like?

>>49921187
bro dydx uses starknet's starkex which is based on zkstarks. zkstarks are even more advanced and scalable than snarks.
you're thinking of optimistic rollups. those can be 'challenged' on L1, yes. doesn't really slow the chain down since you're doing this via the smart contract on L1 afaik.
zk rollups are still rollups. the rolled up transactions are just proven to be valid by the contract so there's nothing to challenge. it's still expensive to do this though.

>>49921156
ETH settlement layer
ICP scalability layer
whether you like it or not

>>49921345
>Bad.
>because
>It's horrible news for
>It seems like
>Because as you can see,
>>>/reddit/

>>49924471
Yes this shows the shitshow that is DyDx.
They need 100 of on chain updates to the orderbook per trade that actually happens on their platform.
This is why GNS will eat their lunch.

>>49924747
>just aware that it's a band-aid solution currently
it's not a band-aid solution if vitalik and the eth foundation have decided to go all-in on rollups as the scaling solution.
there's no such thing as eth 2.0 anymore. they literally straight up said rollups are it for the mid term at least. and in eth years the mid term is easily 10+ years(even if they say it's 5).
if rollups don't work out, it's unironically over for scaling.
perhaps eth will do fine if people are willing to pay $xxx per tx as they did this last bullrun. maybe it just becomes a rich persons toy and that's the end.

>>49921156
Bullish for Fantom (ticker: FTM.)

>>49929999
If Rollups won't get going by the end of 2023 the narrative will shift to digital silver

>>49930465
it's not even that bad of a narrative since they burn the fee now. plus the merge will reduce the rate of inflation and in high usage instances push it into actual deflation(unlike btc which is actually inflationary despite people always calling it deflationary).
so even if it doesn't really scale it's still not really that bad. it works fine as money with some utility for rich people, ie stables, nfts etc.
they'll probably have to keep the 'eth will scale' narrative going for a while so they can dump bags on people next cycle.