polynya
@polynya
Forgive my incessant whining about complete and utter obsession over infra and degeneracy that is crippling the crypto industry This is it, this is what this industry needs, more of this please I don't agree with a lot of this post, but that doesn't matter https://warpcast.com/vitalik.eth/0xadd7345c
6 replies
1 recast
37 reactions
✳️ dcposch on daimo
@dcposch.eth
What do you disagree with?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
polynya
@polynya
Mostly nitpicks, but a major theme is that I think cypherpunk concepts are useless at best, and actively dangerous at worst, in some of the suggested usecases. They are also not as decentralized as what's labeled as "centralized" in some cases. But that doesn't matter, at this point anything but infra obsession welcome
2 replies
0 recast
7 reactions
Devansh Mehta
@thedevanshmehta
Something that's unmentioned in the article is how unsafe roll-ups are for assets minted natively on the L2 We've made it seem like scaling and cost is all solved with L2s, but consumer apps should be made more aware that they don't inherit ethereums security unless they bridge from the L1
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
✳️ dcposch on daimo
@dcposch.eth
No, a real stage2 rollup is as unstoppable as L1, its native assets just as permanent
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
It’s only as “unstoppable” if the block proposer (sequencer) set is the same as the L1’s set right? Otherwise the sequencer(s) can stop the rollup and cause a liveness failure If the rollup inherits the full validator set, then this is just a worse form of “big blocking”. What am I missing?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Devansh Mehta
@thedevanshmehta
Any resource i can read more for this ? I've assumed it'll always be safer to mint on the L1 and then bridge to the L2
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
