Community Trust ScoreVerified
Chris Burniske expressed: Everyone will need an L2 strategy. Bitcoin got there first (Lightning), Ethereum next, and so the progression will go.
In response Emin Gun Sirer expressed: The distinction between layer-1’s and layer-2’s is technically non-existent. We just have multiple chains, connected with bridges. Some chains share some security. Some bridges are trustless. Otherwise, it’s all cooperating/competing chains.
Whatever or not two chains are complementary or in competition depends entirely on the two communities: are they trying to grow the space (e.g. by bringing in new use cases, inventing new assets, etc), or are they parasitically riding on another system.
Could you explain in more detail why individual Avalanche chains wouldn’t benefit from ORs, Zkrs or payment channels? Avalanche chains would 100% benefit from rollups! And anything that works on the EVM would immediately work on Avalanche C-Chain.
L1 because L2’s are typically parasitic, riding on the value proposition and use cases of another chain, not focused on growing the space, and are therefore limited in growth potential.
How many L1s are there today? Just a few credible ones. This isn’t a market where I would cast a wide net, because there’s too much copycat junk out there. Concentrate on the innovative ones.
Mixed Queries and Community Reaction: Avalanche literally has a novel consensus, how is it “recreating” Ethereum?
Validators would not risk the stability of chain by front running since they have serious amount of money at stake.
Front running doesn’t destabilize chain and if their consensus mechanism is novel why isn’t it working as intended? And why isn’t every developer in the community swooning over how great it is.
So, does it make sense to implement an Avalanche subnet that acts as an L2 for another subnet?
Question commits logical fallacy of assuming with reasoning that cross-network communication is not a form of scaling. Answer is that cross-network communication is form of scaling. If your definition of scaling excludes subnets it would likely also exclude L2.
True, unless we’re talking about Rollups, which are real L2 solutions where transactions are executed outside the L1 chain with verifiable proof of transaction on L1.
It should all be replaced by a multisig. Just 5 of 9 is enough for everyone. 5 guys from the US 4 from China should be enough for everyone. Using an intel SGX is probably not even needed. We can scale faster, cheaper and better with a multisig. Multisig the future of France.
You could argue L2 can also encompass centralized systems. Avalanche is the fastest, most decentralized L2 that’s actually an L1, or actually an L0.
