Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mark
@markodayan
I feel like it would be way better if sovereign rollups classified themselves not by being able to enforce their FCR independently because classic rollups have the exact same capabilities. This social distinction thing isn't good enough for formal classification, the motivations driven by social goals need to manifest somewhere -- and for me that comes from looking at choices made around bridging. Sure there are other bells and whistles but the key distinction is whether bridging is baked into the architecture of the rollup. The only real functional difference at the technical foundations of these two rollup types is simply that classic rollups have a two-way, trust-minimized bridge (made possible through implementation of validating bridge contract on the L1 side), while sovereign rollups only have a 1-way, trust-minimized bridge.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Mark
@markodayan
Listen, I don't like the term "trust-minimized" more than the next person, but its clear what this means if we wanna break this down: - L1 to L2 (trust-minimized messaging): they use the L1 for consensus and DA, the rollup inherits L1 trust model (the L1 is implemented by design to minimize trust already) - L2 - L1 (trust-minimized messaging): the implementation of a validity enforcement mechanism of the rollup for the L1 to use is built into the validating bridge logic that exists on the L1. Its trust-minimized because there is auditable information that needs to be provided alongside messages, its not just trusting 1 or more actors to attest to integrity.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
