Thinking about the following:
Let’s imagine that we had OP_CAT and that it did indeed give us introspection, STARKs + state-carrying ability (to build rollups, validiums etc), or even other opcodes that solve it even more neatly (take your pick of OP_TXHASH, OP_CCV, OP_MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY, OP_STARK_VERIFY, OP_M31ADD, OP_M31SUB, OP_M31MUL, OP_M31INV, <insert 64-bit arithmetic opcodes here>)
What would the ideal L2 construction look like for Bitcoin?
What we don’t want to do: repeat the Ethereum playbook—200 competing teams building different L2s, poor interconnectivity/composability all competing for the same users, what *DO* we want to do?
Which lessons can we learn from Ethereum?
Keep in mind that we can’t (nor do we want to) do based rollups. The L1 is too slow for that, and we don’t want baselayer MEV of that nature.
Also keep in mind that we want:
- A high-TPS transaction system (Lightning without channels basically)
- Some will want more expressivity (for trustless stablecoin loans, AMM swaps, vaults, inheritance plans, leverage products)
Should these two types of systems exist on the same execution layer, or is it best to separate payments from applications with different sequencing queues (I tend to believe so) — maybe we want to go in a Celestia-ish direction of doing one zkVM L2 and all the other systems as L3s, separate queues but aggregation via the L2.
Doing real rollups for anything at scale is basically out of the question for the endgame vision given the low throughput of the L1 and the DA needs (and adding blobs seems highly unlikely) so we’d most likely be running some flavor of validiums + external DA-layer, zk-plasmas or client-side validation-based architectures like Miden.
Also, we should explore whether we want pure ZK-systems or hybrid proving (”optimistic ZK”, see Fuel for ref) to maximize throughput even further.
One way is to let the free market win and just see what happens, but that’s what Ethereum did. Even if we take the lessons in with us and teams try to coordinate around singular aggregation solutions from the getgo, there’s no guarantee at all that it will work. We also don’t have any ability to enshrine any particular execution layer via the L1.
Still, it is clear to me that STARKs present the best path for all of the following:
- Trust-minimized payments (without channels, routing or liquidity requirements)
- Expressivity (for those who want it)
- Privacy (full ZK-privacy VMs)
- Achieving all of the above without introducing any exotic cryptographic assumptions, trusted setups etc.
You may ask about finality because of the latency of the L1, but imo it can quite clearly be addressed to a satisfying degree with bonded sequencers for fast pre-confs.
So we have all the tools, what do we do to arrange the best possible outcome?
While BTC should obviously be the currency for all these systems (and pay for fees/gas), there’s the last (or perhaps first) question about how to achieve all of this without introducing an L2 token mostly controlled by a Foundation with too much control.
I think a payments-only system can work fine without a governance token (with just central sequencing + unilateral exits against censorship), but I doubt it for anything expressive.
While most Foundations/DAOs have decentralization as goals, putting that much power in the hands of a centralized org even in a bootstrapping phase seems suboptimal to me if we want some kind of collective approach from the getgo to mitigate fragmentation risks.
Would be great to hear what other people think from people with experience from other ecosystems like Ethereum, Celestia, Polygon, Cosmos and also curious how current L2 teams working on Bitcoin are thinking about these questions (e.g. Alpen, Chainway, Starkware).
Please feel free to chime in in the comments!
8.9K
14
Wei Dai
Not a Bitcoiner, but here's my 2 cents.
Bitcoin needs to focus on simplicity and do the following 3 things really well:
(1) Enable more people to hodl (self-custody) Bitcoin
(2) Enable any two self-custody wallets to transact directly with each other
(3) Provide access to defi with low counter-party risk
Supporting more execution (via rollups / validiums) is necessary to achieve (3).
(2) is what Ethereum got wrong--good luck paying someone on ZKsync era from Base.
So the question is, how to achieve (2) and (3) together?
Yes, I agree with Eric that base or native rollups are probably not feasible for Bitcoin since it's too ossified. This means that there probably won't be one canonical rollup that is "officially" supported and there will be many commercially competitive ones.
As a consequence of the many-chain future, the priority shall be figuring out the set of interop and interface standards, not debating the intricacies of which BitVM bridge/rollup is better than the other.
Two things at the minimum:
- Chain-agnostic address standard
- Deposit/withdraw interface standard for BitVM bridges/rollups
Ethereum rollup-centric roadmap went on for 5 years without these standards and the community is just working on that now. That's the most important lesson Bitcoin should learn from Ethereum.
Eric Wallzard
Thinking about the following:
Let’s imagine that we had OP_CAT and that it did indeed give us introspection, STARKs + state-carrying ability (to build rollups, validiums etc), or even other opcodes that solve it even more neatly (take your pick of OP_TXHASH, OP_CCV, OP_MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY, OP_STARK_VERIFY, OP_M31ADD, OP_M31SUB, OP_M31MUL, OP_M31INV, <insert 64-bit arithmetic opcodes here>)
What would the ideal L2 construction look like for Bitcoin?
What we don’t want to do: repeat the Ethereum playbook—200 competing teams building different L2s, poor interconnectivity/composability all competing for the same users, what *DO* we want to do?
Which lessons can we learn from Ethereum?
Keep in mind that we can’t (nor do we want to) do based rollups. The L1 is too slow for that, and we don’t want baselayer MEV of that nature.
Also keep in mind that we want:
- A high-TPS transaction system (Lightning without channels basically)
- Some will want more expressivity (for trustless stablecoin loans, AMM swaps, vaults, inheritance plans, leverage products)
Should these two types of systems exist on the same execution layer, or is it best to separate payments from applications with different sequencing queues (I tend to believe so) — maybe we want to go in a Celestia-ish direction of doing one zkVM L2 and all the other systems as L3s, separate queues but aggregation via the L2.
Doing real rollups for anything at scale is basically out of the question for the endgame vision given the low throughput of the L1 and the DA needs (and adding blobs seems highly unlikely) so we’d most likely be running some flavor of validiums + external DA-layer, zk-plasmas or client-side validation-based architectures like Miden.
Also, we should explore whether we want pure ZK-systems or hybrid proving (”optimistic ZK”, see Fuel for ref) to maximize throughput even further.
One way is to let the free market win and just see what happens, but that’s what Ethereum did. Even if we take the lessons in with us and teams try to coordinate around singular aggregation solutions from the getgo, there’s no guarantee at all that it will work. We also don’t have any ability to enshrine any particular execution layer via the L1.
Still, it is clear to me that STARKs present the best path for all of the following:
- Trust-minimized payments (without channels, routing or liquidity requirements)
- Expressivity (for those who want it)
- Privacy (full ZK-privacy VMs)
- Achieving all of the above without introducing any exotic cryptographic assumptions, trusted setups etc.
You may ask about finality because of the latency of the L1, but imo it can quite clearly be addressed to a satisfying degree with bonded sequencers for fast pre-confs.
So we have all the tools, what do we do to arrange the best possible outcome?
While BTC should obviously be the currency for all these systems (and pay for fees/gas), there’s the last (or perhaps first) question about how to achieve all of this without introducing an L2 token mostly controlled by a Foundation with too much control.
I think a payments-only system can work fine without a governance token (with just central sequencing + unilateral exits against censorship), but I doubt it for anything expressive.
While most Foundations/DAOs have decentralization as goals, putting that much power in the hands of a centralized org even in a bootstrapping phase seems suboptimal to me if we want some kind of collective approach from the getgo to mitigate fragmentation risks.
Would be great to hear what other people think from people with experience from other ecosystems like Ethereum, Celestia, Polygon, Cosmos and also curious how current L2 teams working on Bitcoin are thinking about these questions (e.g. Alpen, Chainway, Starkware).
Please feel free to chime in in the comments!
14.75K
14
ALEX | ZKsync ∎ reposted
ZKsync (∎, ∆)
Ethereum survives because it adapts.
Brittle systems break. Versatile ones evolve and dominate.
18.7K
184
ZKsync (∎, ∆)
One of Ethereum's core strengths is its ability to adapt and evolve.
The tree that can't bend breaks.
9.1K
112
sacha 🦣 and reposted
Eric Wallzard
Thinking about the following:
Let’s imagine that we had OP_CAT and that it did indeed give us introspection, STARKs + state-carrying ability (to build rollups, validiums etc), or even other opcodes that solve it even more neatly (take your pick of OP_TXHASH, OP_CCV, OP_MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY, OP_STARK_VERIFY, OP_M31ADD, OP_M31SUB, OP_M31MUL, OP_M31INV, <insert 64-bit arithmetic opcodes here>)
What would the ideal L2 construction look like for Bitcoin?
What we don’t want to do: repeat the Ethereum playbook—200 competing teams building different L2s, poor interconnectivity/composability all competing for the same users, what *DO* we want to do?
Which lessons can we learn from Ethereum?
Keep in mind that we can’t (nor do we want to) do based rollups. The L1 is too slow for that, and we don’t want baselayer MEV of that nature.
Also keep in mind that we want:
- A high-TPS transaction system (Lightning without channels basically)
- Some will want more expressivity (for trustless stablecoin loans, AMM swaps, vaults, inheritance plans, leverage products)
Should these two types of systems exist on the same execution layer, or is it best to separate payments from applications with different sequencing queues (I tend to believe so) — maybe we want to go in a Celestia-ish direction of doing one zkVM L2 and all the other systems as L3s, separate queues but aggregation via the L2.
Doing real rollups for anything at scale is basically out of the question for the endgame vision given the low throughput of the L1 and the DA needs (and adding blobs seems highly unlikely) so we’d most likely be running some flavor of validiums + external DA-layer, zk-plasmas or client-side validation-based architectures like Miden.
Also, we should explore whether we want pure ZK-systems or hybrid proving (”optimistic ZK”, see Fuel for ref) to maximize throughput even further.
One way is to let the free market win and just see what happens, but that’s what Ethereum did. Even if we take the lessons in with us and teams try to coordinate around singular aggregation solutions from the getgo, there’s no guarantee at all that it will work. We also don’t have any ability to enshrine any particular execution layer via the L1.
Still, it is clear to me that STARKs present the best path for all of the following:
- Trust-minimized payments (without channels, routing or liquidity requirements)
- Expressivity (for those who want it)
- Privacy (full ZK-privacy VMs)
- Achieving all of the above without introducing any exotic cryptographic assumptions, trusted setups etc.
You may ask about finality because of the latency of the L1, but imo it can quite clearly be addressed to a satisfying degree with bonded sequencers for fast pre-confs.
So we have all the tools, what do we do to arrange the best possible outcome?
While BTC should obviously be the currency for all these systems (and pay for fees/gas), there’s the last (or perhaps first) question about how to achieve all of this without introducing an L2 token mostly controlled by a Foundation with too much control.
I think a payments-only system can work fine without a governance token (with just central sequencing + unilateral exits against censorship), but I doubt it for anything expressive.
While most Foundations/DAOs have decentralization as goals, putting that much power in the hands of a centralized org even in a bootstrapping phase seems suboptimal to me if we want some kind of collective approach from the getgo to mitigate fragmentation risks.
Would be great to hear what other people think from people with experience from other ecosystems like Ethereum, Celestia, Polygon, Cosmos and also curious how current L2 teams working on Bitcoin are thinking about these questions (e.g. Alpen, Chainway, Starkware).
Please feel free to chime in in the comments!
30.42K
98
ZKsync price performance in USD
The current price of ZKsync is $0.052080. Over the last 24 hours, ZKsync has decreased by -4.65%. It currently has a circulating supply of 3,675,000,000 ZK and a maximum supply of 21,000,000,000 ZK, giving it a fully diluted market cap of $191.17M. At present, the ZKsync coin holds the 126 position in market cap rankings. The ZKsync/USD price is updated in real-time.
The rating provided is an aggregated rating collected by OKX from the sources provided and is for informational purpose only. OKX does not guarantee the quality or accuracy of the ratings. It is not intended to provide (i) investment advice or recommendation; (ii) an offer or solicitation to buy, sell or hold digital assets; or (iii) financial, accounting, legal or tax advice. Digital assets, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk, can fluctuate greatly, and can even become worthless. The price and performance of the digital assets are not guaranteed and may change without notice. Your digital assets are not covered by insurance against potential losses. Historical returns are not indicative of future returns. OKX does not guarantee any return, repayment of principal or interest. OKX does not provide investment or asset recommendations. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Please consult your legal/ tax/ investment professional for questions about your specific circumstances.
By using the third-party website ("TPW"), you accept that any use of the TPW will be subject to and governed by the terms of the TPW. Unless expressly stated in writing, OKX and its affiliates ("OKX") are not in any way associated with the owner or operator of the TPW. You agree that OKX is not responsible or liable for any loss, damage and any other consequences arising from your use of the TPW. Please be aware that using a TPW may result in a loss or diminution of your assets.
ZKsync is a Layer-2 zero-knowledge (ZK) rollup designed to scale the Ethereum network and reduce the cost of transacting on the blockchain. ZK rollup, which underpins the platform, is a trustless protocol that allows validators to confirm a transaction's authenticity without revealing any information about the transaction. As a result, the protocol preserves user privacy and security on the network while supporting faster and cheaper transaction processing.
Built by Matter Labs, ZKsync is the first zkEVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) chain. It's designed to "look and feel like Ethereum," according to the project team, to help simplify adoption. Meanwhile, just like Ethereum, smart contracts are written using the Solidity and Vyper smart contract languages, and can be called via the same clients as other EVM-compatible chains.
How does ZKsync work?
ZKsync adopts ZK technology, a cryptographic method used to confirm the proof of a statement while obscuring any information about the statement itself. Think of the technology like an identity card that confirms you're an adult without revealing your actual age, name, or any other personal details.
ZK rollups help to improve the scalability of the Ethereum blockchain by performing computation and state offchain. The solution bundles transactions together at Layer-2 before they're posted on Layer-1. This method allows users to benefit from all the security advantages of Ethereum's base network but with higher throughput and lower fees.
ZKsync is compatible with EVM, and almost every smart contract written for EVM will be supported by the platform. That means most projects can be migrated over to the network with little to no modification.
Why is ZKsync significant?
ZKsync helps to address one of the most pressing limitations of the Ethereum network — scalability. Ethereum's relatively limited transaction throughput can lead to network congestion during periods of high demand, an issue that's only compounded as more users adopt the network. Meanwhile, congestion can lead to high gas fees, making transactions and interactions with decentralized applications costly. High latency is another challenge impacting the network's performance, as transactions are typically confirmed in a relatively slow 13 to 15 seconds.
ZKsync's use of ZK technology helps to ease these limitations while providing a platform that retains Ethereum's robust security and familiar usability. In theory, this should incentivize more developers to adopt Ethereum, strengthening the network's appeal at a time when competing solutions continue to launch.
ZK price and tokenomics
The ZK token has a total circulating supply of 21 billion. In June 2024, an airdrop was completed to distribute 17.5% of the token's supply to the project's community. Of the approximately 3.6 billion tokens reportedly airdropped to 695,232 wallets, 89% went to those who'd transacted on ZKsync — although the exact criteria wasn't announced — with 11% going to ecosystem contributors. This included ZKsync native projects, onchain communities, and builders. Meanwhile, 49.1% of the ZK supply will reportedly be distributed through "ecosystem initiatives", while 17.2% will go to investors and 16.1% will be allocated to Matter Labs members.
Due to a lack of liquidity, no ZK price was available as of the June 2024 ZK token airdrop. However, based on existing pre-launch futures available on Aevo, ZK perpetuals look to be trading at about $0.22.
About the ZKsync founders
ZKsync was developed by Berlin-based blockchain developer Matter Labs. The company was founded in 2018 by Alex Gluchowski and Alex Vlasov, and first deployed ZKsync to a closed testnet in December 2021. The platform was made publicly available on the mainnet on March 24, 2023.
The Matter Labs team, comprised of engineers, researchers, and technical experts, has made clear its focus on redrawing the limits of blockchain scalability through zk technology and open source developments. The organization is working towards the mainstream arrival of public blockchains, and is backed by numerous major players in the space, including the Ethereum Foundation.
Number of posts mentioning a token in the last 24h. This can help gauge the level of interest surrounding this token.
Contributors
Number of individuals posting about a token in the last 24h. A higher number of contributors can suggest improved token performance.
Interactions
Sum of socially-driven online engagement in the last 24h, such as likes, comments, and reposts. High engagement levels can indicate strong interest in a token.
Sentiment
Percentage score reflecting post sentiment in the last 24h. A high percentage score correlates with positive sentiment and can indicate improved market performance.
Volume rank
Volume refers to post volume in the last 24h. A higher volume ranking reflects a token’s favored position relative to other tokens.
In the last 24 hours, there have been 1.6K new posts about ZKsync, driven by 1.1K contributors, and total online engagement reached 226K social interactions. The sentiment score for ZKsync currently stands at 78%. Compared to all cryptocurrencies, post volume for ZKsync currently ranks at 2456. Keep an eye on changes to social metrics as they can be key indicators of the influence and reach of ZKsync.
Powered by LunarCrush
Posts
1,632
Contributors
1,052
Interactions
225,558
Sentiment
78%
Volume rank
#2456
X
Posts
1,452
Interactions
215,375
Sentiment
78%
ZKsync FAQ
How much is 1 ZKsync worth today?
Currently, one ZKsync is worth $0.052080. For answers and insight into ZKsync's price action, you're in the right place. Explore the latest ZKsync charts and trade responsibly with OKX.
What is cryptocurrency?
Cryptocurrencies, such as ZKsync, are digital assets that operate on a public ledger called blockchains. Learn more about coins and tokens offered on OKX and their different attributes, which includes live prices and real-time charts.
When was cryptocurrency invented?
Thanks to the 2008 financial crisis, interest in decentralized finance boomed. Bitcoin offered a novel solution by being a secure digital asset on a decentralized network. Since then, many other tokens such as ZKsync have been created as well.
Watch this video to learn about what happens when you move your money to a crypto exchange.
Disclaimer
The social content on this page ("Content"), including but not limited to tweets and statistics provided by LunarCrush, is sourced from third parties and provided "as is" for informational purposes only. OKX does not guarantee the quality or accuracy of the Content, and the Content does not represent the views of OKX. It is not intended to provide (i) investment advice or recommendation; (ii) an offer or solicitation to buy, sell or hold digital assets; or (iii) financial, accounting, legal or tax advice. Digital assets, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk, can fluctuate greatly. The price and performance of the digital assets are not guaranteed and may change without notice. OKX does not provide investment or asset recommendations. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Please consult your legal/tax/investment professional for questions about your specific circumstances. For further details, please refer to our Terms of Use and Risk Warning. By using the third-party website ("TPW"), you accept that any use of the TPW will be subject to and governed by the terms of the TPW. Unless expressly stated in writing, OKX and its affiliates (“OKX”) are not in any way associated with the owner or operator of the TPW. You agree that OKX is not responsible or liable for any loss, damage and any other consequences arising from your use of the TPW. Please be aware that using a TPW may result in a loss or diminution of your assets. Product may not be available in all jurisdictions.
Start your crypto journey
Faster, better, stronger than your average crypto exchange.
Socials