Vitalik Buterin on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

How do people feel about "strong L2" vs "light L2" as umbrella terms for things with unconditional security (rollups, plasma, channels) vs things with partial security (validiums, pre-confirmations...) that's still better than a multisig? See discussion: https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1747374271717138827

34 replies

11 recasts

166 reactions

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

Copying over this diagram from a few months ago: Proposing to rename "security-favoring" and "scale-favoring" to "strong" vs "light", to be more succinct.

4 replies

1 recast

6 reactions

phil pfp

Light feels like it's worse than strong, when in reality it is a different tradeoff entirely.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Josh Stark pfp

if we could do it all over, I’d propose using “L2” as now and “L3” for the next category of security-guarantee. Make the dominant term we use (and which ordinary users are exposed to) about security-level and not architecture.

0 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

tldr (tim reilly) pfp

tldr (tim reilly)

"Tight L2" – full security, fine speed "Loose L2" – fine security, full speed

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

tldr (tim reilly) pfp

tldr (tim reilly)

"You're not weak, honey... you're just... light."

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

shoni.eth pfp

seems fine- might go with lite (limited integration tradeoff efficiency)

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Ayush pfp

i like this...light implies light weight in my mind so it inherits some of the properties of a full L2

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Liang @ degencast.wtf 🎩 pfp

Liang @ degencast.wtf 🎩

L2 Lite: Fast, cheap, not as robust

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Liang @ degencast.wtf 🎩 pfp

Liang @ degencast.wtf 🎩

L2 Max vs L2 Pro

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

ash pfp

I’m not sure strong and light works well together. “Closed Loop L2” - rollups, plasma… “Open Loop L2” - validiums…

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

🤷🚂👲🧑‍🤝‍🧑 pfp

🤷🚂👲🧑‍🤝‍🧑

idk, I think it's necessary to distinguish between the strength of validity proof vs fraud proof rollups. altogether, it might be useful to meme "this is a L2, it is not L1, therefore don't assume security"

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Michael Pfister pfp

Michael Pfister

How about Fortified L2 vs Agile L2 Focus on the benefits of each. Fortified's strength is security, and Agile's strength is speed/scalability

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Ajit Tripathi pfp

Rollups, Validium, Optimium, Plasma, Channels, Sidechains... every single day, L2s stray further and farther from the security of ethereum Eth needs to reduce narrative confusion diluting the rollup centric roadmap. declaring evthing an L2 we give credence to Toly's "sol is an L2 thru wormhole eigenlayer" troll🙃

1 reply

1 recast

1 reaction

daivd 🎩👽 ↑ pfp

daivd 🎩👽 ↑

Regular vs diet

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

eguegu pfp

"Fortified L2" vs "Agile L2" The terms "strong L2" and "light L2" are also good, but they might inadvertently create a perception of "weakness" in the "light L2" category. Using "Fortified L2" and "Agile L2" could provide a more positive spin on both categories.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Danny pfp

I'm in the camp of "an L2 fully inherits the security of its underlying L1*". Validium is a cool name, it needs not be an L2. *smart contract risk and some more reasonable math assumptions are permitted. 1/N incentivised trust assumption ok.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson pfp

Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson

I prefer Chad L2 vs Virgin L2

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

pgpg pfp

Who is your audience? I talk to ecosystem people (devs, investors etc) who can't figure out which category half the chains fit in. Much less normals. I don't think this wording helps that at all... So...

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

QUID pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction