which comparison is correct, when it comes to upgrading/forking an L2 rollup

1) bridge : L2, nodes : ethereum

2) bridge : L2, circle : ethereum

3) bridge : L2, validators : ethereum

https://farcaster.dep.dev/poll/65b87ee67c2cf2d22bb843d7

Results are in: 

Farcaster is more confident (26% clicked results vs 48% on twitter)

Farcaster has greater participation (20% of people that saw the post clicked on the poll vs 4% on twitter) 

Both groups got the answer dead wrong but farcaster did a bit better (26% vs 23%) correct 

Tricky question, I’ll explain

So what is the role of the bridge in a hard fork?

Bridge contract determines settlement of assets btwn chains

So in a contentious hardfork, assets bridged from L1 via the canonical bridge will settle on whichever chain the bridge chooses

But L2s can have native assets and assets bridged from other bridges and chains

Imagine a world where overtime an ethereum L2 grew to the point where 90% of the value was in L2 native assets or bridged from other chains

In this world the bridge is much like circle in an ethereum hardfork - a powerful influence, determining where a large amount of funds settle, but not an all powerful decider

In the end, social consensus wins on L2s just like any other chain!

People often conflate L2 bridges and the L2 chain itself

L2s are still chains - they have nodes, a sequencer takes on some but not all of the role validators play in L1, they can hard fork (and if their is a fork the more valuable chain is determined by social consensus on which chain is more valuable)

This man is always doing math. 

I am pleased I answered correctly.