One article to understand the expansion plan of the blockchain execution layer, storage layer and consensus layer

Trust minimization is a valuable security property, and blockchain technology is uniquely positioned to enable this property. Blockchain is based on computer code, cryptography and decentralized consensus for security and replaces traditional protocol mechanisms such as handshakes, brand reputation, and paper contracts. Its security guarantees also lay the groundwork for cryptographic facts .

One article to understand the expansion plan of the blockchain execution layer, storage layer and consensus layer

Encrypted facts enable trust minimization for applications and back-end computing of records

At present, the blockchain has achieved trust minimization for various innovative application scenarios, including monetary policy (such as Bitcoin) and digital asset transactions (such as DEX ). However, blockchain has always been difficult to meet the speed and cost requirements of many application scenarios, and cannot be compared with traditional computing systems in these two dimensions. The scalability limitations of the blockchain also force users to pay high transaction fees, which makes developers wonder whether the blockchain can really support high-value application scenarios and realize real-time data processing.

The ultimate goal of blockchain is to cover all users and application scenarios, so scalability is the focus of its research and development, and it is also a key element to promote smart contracts to become the back-end infrastructure of traditional industries such as finance, supply chain and games. The following outlines the scalability issues of blockchain, focusing on the differences between blockchain and traditional computing systems, and enumerates the advantages and disadvantages of different blockchain expansion schemes at the execution layer, storage layer, and consensus layer.

Note: This article does not exhaustively list all blockchain expansion schemes. Due to the cutting-edge research and development of blockchain, various solutions are still in the stages of research and development, testing, deployment and updating.

A comparative analysis of blockchain and traditional computing

Before discussing how to scale blockchain, it is important to understand the fundamental difference between blockchain computing and traditional computing. In general, blockchain has the following core values:

  • Calculations are highly deterministic – strictly executed according to the predefined code logic, with a very high degree of determinism.
  • Trusted and Neutral – Blockchains have no centralized administrators or special network permissions, which means anyone can submit transactions without fear of manipulation or discrimination.
  • Verification by end users – anyone in the world can audit the history and current state of the blockchain ledger and the underlying code of the client software.

More specifically, the task of the blockchain is to manage an internal ledger that can record asset ownership, contract state or raw data. Most blockchain networks are governed by “block producers” and “full nodes”. These two types of actors perform different functions, but sometimes overlap. 

Block producers collect unconfirmed transactions submitted by users, check the validity of the transactions, and place the transactions in a data structure we call a “block”. Block producers are often called “miners” in proof-of-work (PoW) blockchains and “validating nodes” in proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchains. Both PoW and PoS are anti-sybil attack mechanisms, which can always maintain the robustness of the blockchain ledger and prevent the ledger from being manipulated.

After the block producer submits the block, the block will be accepted or rejected by full nodes. Full nodes will independently store a complete copy of the blockchain ledger and continuously verify new blocks, but full nodes do not need to participate in the block production process. Most full nodes are run by block producers, but key economic entities and end users such as exchanges, RPC protocol providers, and stablecoin issuers can also run full nodes. Full nodes have the right to reject invalid blocks, so they can monitor the behavior of block producers, which can ensure network security even if most block producers are malicious. Under this mechanism, if there are a certain number of honest full nodes in the network, creating invalid blocks becomes a thankless task. 

One article to understand the expansion plan of the blockchain execution layer, storage layer and consensus layer

Users submit transactions to the blockchain through full nodes, while miners and validators provide blocks to full nodes and get validated

In addition, the separation of full nodes and block producers can also prevent miners or validators from arbitrarily changing the protocol rules to manipulate blocks. This is a power check and balance mechanism. Block producers only have the power to order transactions, but they cannot decide the rules of the blockchain. The rules are governed by the full-node community, and theoretically, anyone can easily join the full-node community. To learn more about the underlying architecture of blockchains, check out the article Understanding Crypto Facts: Trust-Minimized Computations and Records .

Reducing hardware requirements is critical to lowering the threshold for full node operation, which has always been the key to maintaining a level of decentralization in blockchains, and is also the key to achieving trust minimization. However, decentralization also often results in very slow blockchains, as the network’s speed depends on the slowest node in it. This problem is also known as the “Impossible Triangle of Blockchain”, or the “Scalability Conundrum”, i.e.: traditional blockchains can only operate in two of the three dimensions of scalability, decentralization and security improvement in one dimension.

One article to understand the expansion plan of the blockchain execution layer, storage layer and consensus layer

The impossible triangle of blockchain means that the blockchain has to make trade-offs in the three dimensions of scalability, security and decentralization.

There is a bottleneck in the traditional blockchain model, that is, to achieve scalability, it is necessary to sacrifice the level of decentralization or security, or make some sacrifices in both dimensions. For example, a network that achieves scalability and decentralization has to provide economic incentives for a large number of active participants to ensure security. Networks that achieve scalability and security often have to increase node operating costs at the expense of decentralization. In addition, a network that achieves decentralization and security usually needs to maintain low node requirements and high attack costs, but will eventually encounter bottlenecks in scalability.

Unlike blockchains, traditional computing environments do not need to worry about decentralization because their primary purpose is not to maximize trust-minimization. Therefore, traditional computing networks are often centralized and run by for-profit enterprises. Since the network is managed by a single entity and its computation results do not need to be independently verified by end users, low cost and high operating speed can be achieved. 

Because of this, trust models in traditional computing environments are based on brand endorsements and legal contracts. In contrast, the trust model of blockchain is based on cryptography and game theory, and participants can independently verify and directly participate in the network. Because the traditional computing environment is subject to external influences, there is a single point of failure and single point of control risk, and users cannot audit the process, it is not compatible with blockchain networks.

These questions pose fundamental challenges to blockchain scaling: How can blockchains catch up with traditional computing environments in terms of speed and cost, while maintaining their original strong capabilities in terms of trust minimization and decentralization? 

Three key attributes of blockchain scaling

Blockchain expansion can be roughly divided into three categories, namely: execution layer, storage layer and consensus layer expansion. Below, each category is defined in detail and the core issues it is designed to address are discussed. In fact, scaling at each layer will also be scaling at another layer or two.

Blockchain execution layer

The blockchain execution layer refers to the computational layer that executes transactions and state changes. Transaction execution includes checking the validity of the transaction (e.g. verifying signatures and token balances), executing on-chain logic and calculating state changes. A state change refers to a full node updating a copy of the ledger to reflect new token transfers, smart contract code updates, and data storage. 

Blockchain execution layer scaling usually refers to transactions per second (TPS), but at a more macro level it refers to the amount of computation processed per second, as each transaction varies in complexity and cost. The greater the number of transactions processed in the network, the greater the amount of computation that needs to be performed at any point in time. 

When scaling the execution layer, the main issue is how to handle more computation per second without significantly increasing the hardware requirements for full nodes to verify blockchain transactions. 

Blockchain storage layer

The blockchain storage layer refers to the storage layer where full nodes maintain and store copies of the ledger. The storage function of the blockchain is generally divided into two categories:

  • Historical data – including all raw transaction and block data. Transaction data includes origin and destination addresses, the amount sent, and the signature of each transaction. Block data includes a list of transactions and metadata from a block, such as the root hash, nonce, and the hash of the previous block. Historical data usually does not require fast access, and only requires at least one honest node to download.
  • Global state – is a snapshot of all data that smart contracts can read and write, such as account balances and variables for all smart contracts. The global state can be seen as the database of the blockchain, and incoming transactions need to be verified. State is usually stored in a tree data structure (eg: Merkle tree) that full nodes can access and change easily and quickly.

Full nodes need access to historical data to sync with the blockchain for the first time and global state to validate new blocks and perform new state changes. As the volume of ledger and associated stored data continues to grow, state computation becomes slower and more expensive, as nodes need to spend more time and perform more computations to read and write state. If the node’s memory is full, disk storage space is required, which further slows down the computation as the node needs to switch back and forth between different storage environments during execution.

As the storage requirements of blockchains increase, it often results in state bloat. In the event of state bloat, full nodes often have to upgrade hardware, otherwise it will be difficult to keep up with the current version of the ledger, and it will be difficult for users to sync new full nodes. Several factors can cause state bloat on a blockchain, such as the amount of historical data in the ledger, how often new blocks are added, the maximum size of each block, and the amount of data that must be stored on-chain in order to validate transactions and enforce state changes. 

When expanding the storage layer, the main problem is how to make the blockchain process and verify more data without increasing the storage requirements for full nodes. That is, where can data be stored long-term without subverting the blockchain’s trust assumptions? 

Blockchain consensus layer

The blockchain consensus layer refers to the place where nodes in a decentralized network reach an agreement on the current state of the blockchain. The key to consensus is to ensure that the majority of nodes are honest and ultimately achieve finality, that is: to process transactions accurately and to ensure that transactions are not withdrawn to the greatest extent possible. The design principle of the blockchain consensus layer is usually to minimize the communication cost to increase the upper limit of the decentralization level, achieve a stronger Byzantine fault tolerance mechanism, and shorten the finality time.

When scaling the consensus layer, the main issue is how to improve the finality speed, reduce costs, and further minimize trust. And the premise of all this is to guarantee predictability, stability and accuracy.

Execution layer expansion

The following are the five current expansion schemes for the execution layer of the blockchain, and the advantages and disadvantages of each scheme. In practice, some schemes are combined to improve performance.

Improve the hardware requirements of verification nodes to achieve vertical expansion 

The blockchain execution layer can be scaled by increasing the hardware requirements of block producers. Higher hardware requirements mean that each validator can perform more computations per second.

Advantage: Build a decentralized network in which all nodes have powerful computing power. In this way, blockchain can expand block space, accelerate block generation, and reduce transaction costs, while still maintaining the core advantages of blockchain and smart contracts, namely: trust minimization levels superior to traditional computing environments. Such blockchains are especially suitable for high-frequency trading, gaming, and other latency-sensitive application scenarios.

Disadvantage: Vertical scaling of validators limits the level of decentralization of the network, as the cost of running validators or full nodes becomes higher. Node costs typically get higher over time, which is also prohibitive for most users. Maintaining the level of decentralization will depend on Moore’s Law, which states that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every two years, while computing costs halve. Rising full node costs will also lead to higher costs for end users who directly verify on-chain activity, thus weakening trust minimization.

Create a multi-chain ecosystem to achieve horizontal expansion

In addition to vertical expansion, horizontal expansion can also be performed by using multiple independent blockchains or a side chain of a blockchain ecosystem. Horizontal expansion can disperse the transaction calculation volume in a certain ecosystem to multiple independent blockchains, each of which has its own block producer and execution capabilities.

Advantages: The multi-chain ecosystem can fully customize the execution layer of each chain, such as node hardware requirements, privacy functions, gas fees, virtual machines, and permission settings. Because of this, the multi-chain ecosystem sometimes produces dApp-specific blockchains, and a certain blockchain specifically supports a dApp or a small group of dApps. A self-sovereign blockchain can also isolate security risks, that is: the security of one chain does not necessarily spread to other chains in the ecosystem.

Disadvantages: Multi-chain ecology requires each blockchain to establish its own security mechanism by continuously issuing inflationary native tokens. While this model is normal for early blockchains, it is also difficult to transition to a more sustainable economic model that monetizes through on-chain user fees, which tend to be spread across different blockchains. achieve economies of scale. And since the interacting dApps and tokens are not necessarily on the same chain, there are also compatibility issues.

Will perform layer sharding to achieve horizontal expansion

Another similar scaling solution is to divide a blockchain into many pieces and execute them in parallel. Each shard is actually a blockchain, which means that many blockchains can execute in parallel. In addition, there will be a main chain whose only task is to keep all shards in sync. 

When executing shards, the validator pool will also be distributed to each shard to execute transactions. Nodes are randomly rotated periodically, so transactions on the same shard are not always executed/validated. And the number of shards will also be configured to ensure that the probability of any shard being attacked is close to zero.

Advantage: All shards of the execution layer draw nodes from the same node pool, so there is no need to establish security mechanisms on new shards. If the node pool is large enough, each execution environment can achieve the same level of security. There is also no need to increase the hardware requirements of nodes to perform layer sharding, as nodes only need to perform computation tasks on one shard at a time. Shards can run on the same virtual machine or with different configuration parameters to meet the needs of special use cases. 

Disadvantage: Sharding is limited in flexibility since all nodes must be able to support computation on each shard. In addition, since the computing demand on the main chain will increase, and the number of nodes allocated to each shard may not be enough, there is also an upper limit on the number of shards that a blockchain can support. In addition, due to the shared security model, all shards may have the same security vulnerabilities, so there will be certain problems in load balancing and implementation risks.

One article to understand the expansion plan of the blockchain execution layer, storage layer and consensus layer

In a multi-chain ecosystem, different blockchains generally do not share the same security mechanism. However, different shards will share the same node pool, so they will also share the same security mechanism.

Horizontal expansion through modularity

Another horizontal scaling solution is the modular blockchain. This scheme divides the infrastructure of the blockchain into an execution layer, a data availability layer (DA), and a consensus layer. The most mainstream blockchain modularization mechanism is rollup. This mechanism transfers computation and state to the off-chain network and stores transaction data on-chain. The results of state changes computed off-chain are then verified on-chain using zero-knowledge proofs (zk-rollup) or fraud proofs (optimistic rollup). 

Advantages: Modular blockchains move transaction execution and state to a lower-cost, leaner, and higher-throughput computing environment, while preserving the security properties of the underlying blockchain. This is because the consensus layer is still based on the original decentralized underlying blockchain (ie L1) when verifying the execution layer off-chain computation. That is, since full nodes no longer have to execute every transaction, the computing bandwidth of the underlying blockchain can be utilized more efficiently. Full nodes only need to verify concise proofs and store a small amount of transaction data.  

Rollup can also set circuit breakers for trust minimization. If a rollup network fails to function properly, users can withdraw their crypto assets and submit them to the underlying blockchain. Many modular networks also share user costs. There is a fixed cost to verify the proof of zk-rollup on the underlying blockchain. As usage increases, this cost can be shared among more users, so the consensus cost per user decreases accordingly. In addition, rollup also has a 1/n trust model, that is, even if there is only one honest node, the accuracy and robustness of the calculation can be guaranteed.

Disadvantages: Most modular solutions use the underlying blockchain as security, but the underlying blockchain usually has limited block space and higher costs, so this solution may be faster than a sidechain or a standalone blockchain slower or more expensive. The current modular solution usually has upgrade risks and requires governance intervention from outside the rollup, so it cannot guarantee immutability. Finally, running a rollup or other modular blockchain is more innovative and complex than running a separate blockchain.

One article to understand the expansion plan of the blockchain execution layer, storage layer and consensus layer

It has been proposed to scale Ethereum by modularizing it into execution, data availability and consensus layers (source)

Payments and State Channels

Payments and state channels enable blockchain scaling. Users lock cryptocurrency in a multi-signature smart contract, and then exchange signed messages off-chain, which represent asset ownership transfers or state changes. There is no need to initiate any on-chain transactions during the whole process. Users only need to initiate on-chain transactions when creating and closing channels.

Users can encrypt and sign each transaction through a multi-signature contract to ensure that the settlement in the channel is correct. Each signature will have a nonce, and the smart contract can use the nonce to verify that the transaction order is correct.

Advantages: Payments and state channels enable real-time, zero-cost cryptocurrency transfers with virtually no latency. Payment channels can enable micropayments, a feature that is usually not available on the underlying blockchain. In addition, the payment channel can also lock the cryptocurrency in the channel, and if the two parties cooperate smoothly, the settlement can be quickly settled on the chain.

Disadvantage: State/payment channels require each participant to remain connected to ensure that counterparties do not settle on-chain with old messages. That is to say, watchtower must continuously monitor the channel and protect the security of user funds. The payment channel also needs to be recharged in advance, so large payments will be cumbersome and the capital efficiency will be low. 

In addition, it is difficult to efficiently schedule payment tasks between various channels, so it may lead to transfer failures, or create a more centralized model to ensure that users can obtain sufficient liquidity or efficient routing. In summary, state/payment channels work best with a known set of static actors, but fail to work with an unconstrained set of dynamic actors. There is also the issue of ownership. Channels are often difficult or impossible to represent items that do not have a clear owner (eg: liquidity pools for DEXs).

Expanded data storage layer

Below are six options for scaling the blockchain storage layer currently. In practice, some schemes are combined to better improve storage capacity.

Vertical scaling of blockchain nodes

Like the vertical scaling of the blockchain execution layer, the vertical scaling of the blockchain storage layer also requires upgrading the hardware of the full node. 

Advantages: Blockchain increases the storage upper limit of full nodes, which can greatly reduce storage costs. Full nodes can store more historical data and state. Store data directly on full nodes without relying on additional storage layers or external storage systems, so it is more convenient to access on-chain data.

Disadvantage: Over time, more and more data is stored on the chain. As a result, the running cost of full nodes continues to rise, which will threaten the level of decentralization of the blockchain. Once the level of decentralization is reduced, users will get lower trust minimization guarantees, and the availability and accuracy of data cannot be fully guaranteed. State bloat also causes block execution to slow down, which will put more pressure on the network. 

Data sharding on the underlying blockchain

Another blockchain data storage expansion solution is data sharding. Data sharding divides the ledger data or data used to rebuild the ledger into different shards, reducing the storage requirements for each node.

Advantages: Data sharding can increase the storage capacity of the blockchain and reduce storage costs without increasing the hardware requirements for nodes. This solution can lower the threshold for users to run nodes, so the level of decentralization can be maintained. Data sharding can also improve the storage capacity of rollup, which stores transaction data on the underlying blockchain to rebuild the rollup state. Alternatively, schemes such as Darksharding could create a consolidated fee market to better balance data load volumes and data entry. 

Disadvantage: Since more shards put more pressure on the main chain, there is an upper limit on the number of shards that the blockchain can carry. In addition, Data Availability Sampling (DAS) needs to be implemented to verify the availability of historical data used to reconstruct parts of the ledger at the time of block production, without the need for nodes to download all the data themselves. In addition, data sharding also incurs communication costs. When nodes rotate to other shards, they need to exchange and store data with each other. In addition, a large number of nodes are required to maintain high security, which means that each shard must maintain a certain level of decentralization, so the scale of the entire node pool must be very large.

Use a modular blockchain to compress on-chain data storage

Modular blockchains perform computational tasks off-chain and then store transaction data and state changes on or off-chain. Other nodes or users can use this data to reconstruct the current or historical state of the ledger. Rollup compresses data off-chain before storing it on-chain.

Advantage: Storing compressed data on-chain is the safest data storage solution for modular blockchains, as all nodes in the network store the data. In addition, doing so reduces the cost of data storage on the underlying blockchain. After rollup implements data sharding, it can store transaction data on the chain more efficiently and at lower cost, and better achieve scalability as usage increases. 

Disadvantage: On-chain storage is much more expensive than off-chain storage, which may make modular blockchains less scalable than more centralized storage solutions. Compressing data may also lose some data that is not critical to verification, so users may not be able to perform a more granular analysis of on-chain activity based on the remaining data.

Off-chain data storage for modular blockchains

Modular blockchains can store transaction data off-chain to further reduce on-chain storage requirements. For example, “validiums” publish zero-knowledge proofs on-chain and store data off-chain. At present, modular blockchains mainly adopt four off-chain data storage schemes:

  • Centralized Storage – Storing data on an off-chain centralized platform. This solution has the lowest data storage cost, but it may also lead to a lack of data transparency or security. For example, a centralized storage platform may modify data or go offline directly.
  • Permissioned DAC – Stores data off-chain, certifies the accuracy of the data on-chain, and is signed off by a small committee of trusted nodes called the Data Availability Committee (DAC). The advantages and disadvantages of this scheme are similar to the centralized storage scheme, but the trust assumption in terms of data availability is superior.
  • Permissionless DACs – store data off-chain, use permissionless DACs to provide on-chain proofs, and employ cryptoeconomic incentives to incentivize honest behavior. The cost of permissionless DAC is lower than on-chain storage solutions, and the security is higher than other off-chain storage solutions. The disadvantage is that the security is still not as good as on-chain storage solutions, and it has not yet achieved large-scale applications and sustainable economic models.
  • Volition – Users can choose to store transaction data on-chain or off-chain. Volition is innovative because it provides a data availability solution at the transaction level, while allowing all transactions to share the same root of state and amortize consensus costs. However, this solution is more complicated than the other solutions mentioned above, and it has not yet been implemented.

data pruning

Data pruning technology can allow blockchain full nodes to delete historical data before a certain block height. Data pruning is usually used in conjunction with PoS checkpoints, and transactions in blocks that exceed a certain checkpoint are considered final. This means that these transactions cannot be withdrawn unless a major social consensus or hard fork occurs. 

Advantage: Data pruning reduces the amount of data that nodes need to store or refer to when participating in consensus. Since historical data has been validated, it can be pruned to reduce the size of the ledger. If you run a full node just to verify future blocks and not to trace historical blocks, then there is no need to store historical data.

Disadvantage: Data pruning requires reliance on third parties such as trading platforms or block explorers to permanently store historical data all the way back to the genesis block. However, since this is a 1/n trust model, only one third party is required to honestly store data and help full nodes reconstruct all historical states. Since PoS provides checkpointing and weak subjectivity, this assumption makes little sense. However, this data still has some value for on-chain analytics and block explorers.

Stateless, State Expired, and State Rent

There are also solutions that focus on limiting the amount of state a full node can store, especially by setting state expiration, statelessness, or state rent. 

  • State Expiration – Nodes can prune state that has not been visited for more than a period of time, and can use some kind of Merkle proof (also known as “witness”) to restore expired state when needed.
  • Stateless – Full nodes do not need to store state. Full nodes only need to verify new blocks through witness. Weak statelessness means that only the node producing the block needs to store the global state, and all other nodes can verify the block without storing the state.
  • State rent – Users pay rent for limited state storage space. States that do not pay rent will be reclaimed and leased to new users.

Advantage: These schemes place limits on state storage requirements, which ultimately help limit the amount of state storage a node can store. This can alleviate state bloat and effectively deal with the expanding ledger or the increasing number of transactions on the chain. Constraining state storage works well for end-user authentication in the long term while maintaining low hardware requirements. 

Disadvantages: Limiting state storage is innovative to a certain extent. Users do not need to pay a single fee, so that each node in the network permanently stores its own state information, which is very different from the current operating mode of blockchain. In addition, it is not easy to upgrade the blockchain from the traditional state storage model to the more restrictive state storage model. Some states may not be readily accessible and may therefore affect the specific assumptions of some applications during development. The new state storage model may also increase costs for some applications.

Expansion consensus layer

Below are four key goals for scaling a blockchain consensus layer, which relate to block production speed, finality speed, and robustness against node offline or malicious attacks. It should be noted here that scaling the consensus layer is not only to improve speed, but also to improve accuracy, stability, and security.

Improve execution and storage capabilities

One of the basic elements of upgrading the blockchain consensus mechanism is to improve computing and storage capabilities while basically maintaining the hardware requirements for full nodes. Doing so allows more nodes to participate in consensus as the ledger grows, or at least prevents existing nodes from leaving the network, effectively achieving better consensus on runtime, manipulation resistance, accuracy, and security. If the execution and storage capacity can be greatly improved without too much impact on the full node, the blockchain can even achieve higher block speed and larger block space stably without sacrificing the core Centralized traits.

Reduce network bandwidth usage

Another way to expand the blockchain consensus mechanism is to reduce network bandwidth usage, that is, to reduce the communication cost (and also the cost of sending and receiving messages) required for all nodes to reach consensus. A node does not need to communicate with all other nodes to reach consensus (ie: all-to-all voting), but only needs to communicate with a small number of nodes at any time (ie: repeat sampling votes). Some consensus mechanisms do not employ multiple rounds of voting or communication, but only require communication when blocks are propagated, but this often leads to non-deterministic endgames.

Reduce network latency 

There are solutions that focus on reducing network latency during consensus, especially speeding up endgame. Some blockchain consensus mechanisms achieve instant finality through multiple rounds of repeated sampling or all-to-all voting. Other blockchains have checkpoints and are secured by validators reaching consensus after a period of time. This means that a block is considered final once it passes a checkpoint, and block reorganizations can no longer be performed within the protocol. There must be a trade-off between network latency and network bandwidth, but there are hybrid solutions that optimize both.

Raise your security budget

It is also possible to expand the trust-minimized consensus layer by increasing the security budget, providing incentives for nodes participating in the consensus. Common ways are to provide liquidity, issue token rewards, or increase transaction fee income due to block space in short supply. Increasing the security budget brings more potential revenue for participants, which also increases the level of decentralization of the network, as more nodes are economically incentivized to join the network. The blockchain can also require nodes to stake more tokens or provide more computing power to participate in the consensus mechanism. However, if the threshold is set too high, it may reduce the level of decentralization of the network.

Future prospects for scalability and secure cross-chain

Blockchain scaling is currently at a critical stage of development, with a rich set of solutions being developed, tested and released. The current development focus of the blockchain is to achieve expansion under the premise of ensuring the minimization of trust, and it is bound to become the preferred back-end infrastructure for various industries and application scenarios.

To support the growing multi-chain ecosystem, Chainlink is actively developing the Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) to help users securely transfer data and tokens across various blockchains with custom logic. CCIP focuses on security and creates an anti-fraud network that enables cross-chain smart contracts and secure token bridges, while maintaining the original trust assumptions of the blockchain. For more information about CCIP, please read “CCIP Unlocks Cross-Chain Smart Contract Innovation” .

One article to understand the expansion plan of the blockchain execution layer, storage layer and consensus layer

CCIP’s infrastructure

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:
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 2022-07-19 14:14
Next 2022-07-19 23:42

Related articles