Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

foreword 

Blockchain Layers = Disaggregated Blockchain Layers = DBL

In the current market, the narrative about DBL is not only Celestia, but also Danksharding, which marks the official entry of Ethereum into the modular era.

TL,DR;

  • Compared with Monolithic Blockchain, DBL is a better paradigm, and it is also the mainstream trend of the current blockchain underlying architecture;
  • Although they are both DBLs, there is an essential difference between the design concepts of Danksharding and Celestia: Danksharding continues the “security” of Ethereum to the greatest extent VS Celestia exchanges a certain degree of security for some extremely important “degrees of freedom”;
  • As we all know, DBL-based chains usually have significant advantages in terms of scalability and customizability, but here we also want to emphasize “Sovereignty” (an advanced feature of custom features, the operator of the chain is independent of the state of the chain) control), this feature is important for those large community projects;
  • Different DBL designs have different performances in Scalability/Security/Sovereignty/Ease of Development (see Figure 1 for details);
  • Celestia’s architecture is more suitable for large projects & large communities, and they have the ability to support Sovereignty; Ethereum’s various architectures are the best choice for new & tool projects, because they have the strongest security support and a large amount of user traffic.

What is the blockchain hierarchy?

The layered structure of the blockchain (thanks @polynya, I personally think this statement is more accurate than the modular blockchain) means splitting the three basic steps of computing/storage/consensus into three relatively independent layers, The current mainstream blockchain architecture is a non-hierarchical structure, that is, the three parts of calculation/storage/consensus are executed by the same batch of nodes.

  •  Computation Layer (aka Execution Layer): Responsible for executing transactions submitted by users, this layer can theoretically support any execution architecture;
  •  Consensus Layer (aka Consensus Layer): Responsible for confirming the state of the blockchain after running for a period of time;
  •  Storage Layer (aka Data Availability, DA): Ensures availability & correctness of related data.

What is the value of the blockchain layered structure?

Capacity expansion YYDS!

If you don’t want to make any compromises in the impossible triangle, but you want to improve the performance of Monolithic Blockchain, you can only hope for better hardware support.

Unfortunately, current hardware doesn’t seem to support such a requirement (recommended to read Vitalik’s elaboration)

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Celestia Co-Founder Mustafa Al Bassam’s extremely insightful explanation of scalability

And DBL, as a new paradigm, allows us to realize the expansion of the blockchain without compromise / as little compromise as possible. The logic behind it is as follows:

Nodes under the DBL structure only need to focus on a part of the three items of storage/computing/consensus, and the workload is greatly reduced, so more hardware devices can support node operation, that is, in the face of larger block capacity, it is still guaranteed network security.

The ability to customize is also important, even more valuable than the ability to expand!

zkVM, uVM, we have seen that at the level of Ethereum L2, some projects have broken through the limitations of EVM and made their own customizations!

Celestia, on the other hand, undoubtedly goes further on the road of customizability: nodes can upgrade their version by unilaterally forking, and interpret the underlying transaction data in a way that they think is reasonable.

 DBL summary and comparison

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Figure 1, the higher the score from 1 to 5, the better the performance of the program in this item

Considering that Celestia has further refined the layered architecture, here is a further split of the consensus layer of Ethereum:

  •  Txs Sequence Consensus (transaction sequence consensus layer): This layer is responsible for ordering all gas fee-paid transactions in the entire P2P network;
  •  Global State Consensus (full chain state consensus layer): This layer is responsible for consensus on the state of the chain after all valid transactions are executed;

These two parts are done in one layer in Ethereum, called the Consensus Layer.

Based on such a set of analysis frameworks, we elaborated on the core features and values ​​of each development framework:

Ethereum series

The current mainstream Rollup mode (Current Rollup)

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Representative projects: Optimism, Arbitrum, StarkNet, Zk-Sync, Scroll, Fuel

This kind of solution can be called the beginning of layered expansion (Nervos is indeed earlier, but it is weaker in terms of market popularity): an external Execution Layer, and the final consensus of this Execution Layer is delivered to the Ethereum layer. Finish;

Benefit of design: Reduces the cost of storing transaction data by amortizing fixed costs and some compression techniques.

Current Validium (Current Validium)

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Representative projects: Anytrust (by Offchain-labs), ZkPorter (by Matter Labs)

As a variant of Rollup, the DA layer of the Validium scheme is no longer under the responsibility of Ethereum, but provides DA support through some off-chain structures.

Compared with Rollup, Validium has higher scalability (the limited space of the block no longer needs to store DA-related data), but it also gives up a certain degree of security (after all, the security of the DA layer is no longer guaranteed by Ethereum);

At present, Validium on the market has many schemes for the selection of the DA layer (DA committee, supervisor, etc.), all of which weaken the security to varying degrees, but the overall security is significantly weakened compared to Rollup.

Danksharding

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Representative project: too difficult, there is only one at present, no semicolon

As the latest design of ETH 2.0, Danksharding has gone further than Rollup and Validium on the road of “DBL”:

 Separate DA into a layer (more efficient than Rollup), but still within the security envelope of Ethereum (more secure than Validium);

Txs Sequence Consensus and Global State Consensus have been split into two steps (although they are still executed in one layer), which greatly reduces the threshold of Global State Consensus;

Benefit of design: Ability to push large blocks (representing higher scalability) without degrading the security of the entire blockchain network. The logic is to allow validators to verify only a portion of all transactions (ie, larger blocks will not put extra burden on validators)

If you are interested in the details of Danksharding, you can refer to Delphi Digital’s elaboration

Celestia series

As a design with a completely popular DBL concept, the basic concept of Celestia is extremely novel: Celestia is only responsible for the DA layer and Txs Sequence Consensus

Sovereign Chain

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Representative projects: none

This is the most primitive (you can also call it the foundation) architecture of Celestia, that is, Celestia only cares about DA and Txs Sequence Consensus, and the two layers above Global State Consensus and Execution are free to play.

The reason why it is called “Sovereign Chain” is that the operator of the chain (of course it can also be a Rollup) can freely play on the Global State Consensus, that is, the final state of the network at a certain moment is independently determined by the operator of the chain. (Instead of the final state of Ethereum’s Rollup determined by the consensus of nodes in Ethereum L1): We call this situation of independent decision-making power over the final state of the chain as Sovereign, Sovereign.

Of course, you need to note that the ultimate security of the sovereign chain is not fully protected by Celestia, such as this case:

When the operator of the Sovereign Chain only executes part of the transaction recorded by Celestia, Celestia cannot force the sovereign chain to make corrections;

Even if the Sovereign Chain can avoid the malicious behavior of the chain operator as much as possible through fraud proof/validity proof, such a design still depends entirely on the executor of the Sovereign Chain layer, that is, the security largely depends on the Sovereign Chain itself cannot completely rely on Celestia, and it will not follow the strong security of Ethereum like Rollup under the Ethereum framework.

But I still admire this architecture, even compared to other Celestia series architectures:

  •  Nodes of the chain are free to choose to parse the underlying data in different ways, including upgrading their clients without forking, for example: If two groups in a chain’s community have different ideas about block size, These two groups can be independently updated to different clients to meet unique needs, but the two groups can still get the only correct result;
  •  More importantly, the community of the chain can have absolute right to speak on the situation of the chain. In contrast, the behavior of Rollup under the Ethereum framework is subject to the consensus of the Ethereum L1 community.

Execution Rollup

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Representative projects: Cevmos, dYmension, Eclipse

The design of Execution Rollup is to build a general Global State Consensus layer on the basis of Celestia (here called Hub, several representative projects such as Cevmos mentioned above are all expressions of this layer), and developers can use this State Consensus Hub As a basis to build multiple Rollups;

This design is somewhat similar to the current Rollup framework of Ethereum:

 Rollup (Execution Rollup) binds Ethereum (Cevmos, dYmension, Eclipse) to implement Txs Sequence Consensus & Global State Consensus (Cevmos etc. provide Global State Consensus, Txs Sequence Consensus is provided by Celestia);

Compared with the previous solutions, this set further reduces the workload of developing & operating a Rollup:

  •  Develop & operate a Global Consensus Layer less than Sovereign Chain;
  •  Pay one less expensive DA layer than Currnet Rollup;

However, it should be noted that compared with Sovereign Chain, this solution lacks a large part of its customizability, that is, a Rollup based on this framework can usually only choose several development frameworks given by its underlying State Consensus Hub, and it is sovereign does not have.

Such a design with a somewhat “intermediate” flavor adds an option to the blockchain field in a sense, let’s wait and see.

Heavenly

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Representative projects: none

The dream linkage between Celestia and Ethereum: Celestia, as the DA layer of Ethereum Validium, is more secure than schemes such as Data Availability Committes and Guardians.

For a detailed breakdown of the different DA layer options, see here

Ethereum VS Celestia – Different DBL Design Ideas

You may have discovered: Danksharding (including other Ethereum series products) is to let the Ethereum Becon Chain (or L1 structure) be responsible for the Global State Consensus, and Celestia itself will not be responsible for any framework of the Celestia series this part.

Here are some of the possible reasons I have personally summarized:

  •  Danksharding: As the most decentralized blockchain (not considering the BTC network for the time being), Ethereum has the best security & robustness in the entire network, so we see Danksharding continuing this value as soon as possible.
  •  Celestia: Considering that it is almost impossible for a network to accumulate a number of decentralized nodes comparable to Ethereum, and the market does not need a second Ethereum, Celestia chose security Certain compromises have been made in exchange for more customization and sovereignty.

DBL solutions other than Ethereum & Celestia

Nervos series

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

As a forerunner in the DBL direction earlier than Rollup, Nervos released a layered architecture manifesto in 2018:

The Nervos Network has a layered architecture, with a single Layer 1 blockchain, the Nervos Common Knowledge Base (CKB), and many Layer 2 systems. Layer 1 is focused on providing security and decentralization, while developers can construct layer 2 systems (focused on functionality and performance) that are securely rooted in and interoperable with the Layer 1 CKB.

Although it is very similar to Current Rollup from the diagram, Nervos chose UTXO (instead of Ethereum’s account model) at the L1 level:

  •  It is well known that it is very difficult to develop smart contracts on top of UTXO, which has indeed slowed down the development of the entire ecosystem, but fortunately, Nervos recently launched the first L2 that supports EVM-compatible smart contracts;
  •  There are not only shortcomings. UTXO has significant advantages over the account model in the parallel computing level: L2–Fuel based on UTXO has shown good possibilities to the outside world;

Arweave series

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Representative projects: SmartWeave, Ever.Finance

PS The DA here is special: Arweave not only stores transaction information, but also stores the code of the latest version of the application

This design uses Arweave as the original DA layer, which brings a very special point: DA on the storage chain of permanent storage = DA that always exists!

But this solution also has obvious shortcomings:

As a storage chain, Arweave only ensures that the information can be stored correctly, but does not check the authenticity of the stored information, which means that Arweave does not provide Txs Sequence Consensus, that is, the smart contract chain built on Arweave needs to be responsible for Txs by itself Sequence Consensus, Global State Consensus and Execution are three parts.

SmartWeave, as the smart contract development framework officially launched by Arweave, allows developers to develop at the smart contract level;

And Ever.Finance is an anti-DDoS optimized version of SmartWeave.

Polygon series

Detailed explanation of blockchain hierarchy: core features and values ​​of different development frameworks

Representative projects: none

Polygon also proposed Avail in the direction of DBL as a supplement to the options for Polygon ecological developers:

 The architecture is similar to Execution Rollup, Avail provides the functions of Celestia, while the State Consensus Hub is undertaken by Polygon, on which developers can build their own Execution Rollup.

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/detailed-explanation-of-blockchain-hierarchy-core-features-and-values-of-different-development-frameworks/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-08-15 11:02
Next 2022-08-15 11:04

Related articles