The following post was deleted shortly after it was published on r/Cardano, which pretty much coincided with a lively debate on Twitter over some reported issues related to contract functionality in Cardano, which was off to a rocky start: https: // www. reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/phqpzj/can_anyone_confirm_if_this_is_1_swap_per_block/hbks23n/
Since censoring valuable insights is hardly the way to proceed with blockchain development, the commentary is republished with the author's permission for those interested in following the topic.
The issue discussed focuses on the design and relationship between the consensus layer (L1) and layer 2 (L2), which runs on a blockchain-based protocol to improve its scalability and efficiency, as well as the functionality of smart contracts. This is a brief argument for the respective roles of L1 and L2. Here's the deleted post:
"I may be stepping into a hornet's nest here, so forgive my rudeness, but my qualifications are those of a blockchain researcher and developer since 2013 and of a technical director of a public Canadian company that focuses on blockchain consulting and protocol-level development. as follows and apologies if they don't intersect with the goals of the ADA, but it is what it is and perhaps we can learn from the discussion:
The L1 velocity does not matter in the L2 zkRollup oriented world. This means that L1 should be viewed as a court system, not a transaction handler. L1 essentially becomes a data availability layer that requires decentralization, maximum security (nakamoto consensus). This makes many l1-alt smart circuits redundant on their own order, and also eth, but their type is in the number 1 spot, so judgment is reserved on this one for now. For ethics, this would remove the incentive for uncle rates, which are an inefficiency accounted for because with a longer block-focused look at the judgment circuit, the uncle rates would drop and you could actually lock the circuit if you had enough time for the validators to see what the current state of the circuit is with enough confidence (a sufficient percentage of the network). "
"Quantum resistance means that the consensus layer can be made flexible if necessary, or change addresses can be used (something the ADA perhaps does), but it should not come at the cost of large-scale convenience. If ADA had a zkRollup-oriented view, it might be easier to lighten up. In our design we also have a base layer in UTXO that combines with bitcoin to share the power of the network, but EVM lives in its own layer that is account based. frameworks), however, may not be a long-term wealth storage mechanism that is best suited through UTXO. So users can set up and store without trust in the UTXO layer, but still transact with DeFi/NFT/X the next hype-mania in the EVM layer. "
execute once and create a proof, and finally you have to merge these proofs into a single set or single proof recursively to represent the execution of the contracts. These three things are enough to scale without trust and let L1 be its own efficient court system, helping us scale just as real-life court systems have helped us scale as a society (we only refer to court costs when necessary, not for every action). "(redacted)
Jag Sidhu,
BlockchainFoundry & Lead Core Developer Syscoin
––
For those interested in the design of Syscoin EVM, which will be released in 2021, please follow this connection for the in-depth technical document!
PS. I just learned that this post will now be added to the https://www.reddit.com/r/SysCoin/ so the community can discuss it more easily!