Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
We can do better than having separate fee markets per "state hot spot": We can have fee markets per temporal event relating to a hot spot! Imagine an ephemeral rollup that automatically deploys to aggregate state for a hot spot, then collapses state back into the L1 once the hot spot dissipates. Could we make this completely transparent from the user's perspective and fully inherit security using native rollups? We could have some settings on a per-contract level to enable this, the contract could choose a sequencer strategy if it needs to aggregate (contracts could commission their own sequencers for additional business models during periods of high activity). Space ➡ Time.
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
I. Christwin〔▸‿◂〕💡
@ichristwin.eth
I honestly used to think this was the rollup we thought of on the roadmap to scale. But the incentives seemed to favour rollups not doing that. They launched tokens and started building a brand and now we live in this timeline.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Yea "aggregated state collapsed to L1" is the intuitive understanding for most people but that doesn't actually achieve scale long term. It's only good in scenarios where there is very high contention around the same state. For long term scale, we do need separate chains but with strong bridging/security guarantees that can scale mostly independently of the L1.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
I. Christwin〔▸‿◂〕💡
@ichristwin.eth
True, I can't argue with results from @base. The blockchain trilemma is one of the first things anyone learns about when they start building in this space, and if we really can't catch them all, then the best thing is to find a design that allows us to outsource what we don't have and dial the others up to 10. 🎛️🤏 🤠 While the L2s focus on amping up side B of this mixtape, the L1 remasters track C; and that's how we catch them all.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
