Buterin proposed enhancing L1 with high-level features to simplify L2 coding complexity for better simplicity.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently expressed skepticism about the popular notion of prioritizing simplicity in layer 1 (L1) blockchains over layer 2 (L2) solutions.
Buterin revealed that his confidence in simplifying L1 at the expense of the more complex L2 has weakened significantly over the past five years.
Risk of Errors in L2 Networks
Buterin highlighted the dilemma of choosing between the bug-related risks of L1 and L2. He said: “It’s not actually clear that the latter is better!”
He used the example of a consensus failure in an L1 blockchain, which, despite causing a temporary disruption, was eventually resolved, to illustrate this point, and he highlighted the potential risk of L2 network errors, which could result in significant permanent financial loss.
Buterin proposed an alternative approach, arguing that introducing high-level functionality to L1 might help alleviate the coding complexity of L2, making it simpler.
Buterin has also recently explored the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to solve one of Ethereum’s main technical hurdles: the problem of bugs in its code.
Bitcoin enthusiast Leo Fernevak sparked the discussion on X by stating that scaling at the base layer will not happen. He argued that complex functionality can be developed on L2 and that the base layer will inevitably become full regardless of scaling attempts.
Buterin talks about L2 networks
L2 solutions aim to increase throughput by processing transactions outside of the main L1 blockchain. However, the complexity of these solutions can lead to issues where errors are difficult to detect and resolve.
Errors in L2 networks can result in significant financial losses. For example, errors in payment channels such as the Lightning Network can cause transactions to be recorded incorrectly, which can lead to loss of funds.
Buterin also recently discussed L2 networks, explaining that L2 is divided into Rollups and validium, while emphasizing the importance of its security and scalability features.
Rollups consolidate transactions into a single proof on the main chain, prioritizing security.
In contrast, Validium prioritizes scalability by storing data off-chain, keeping proofs on-chain, but with a slight compromise in security.
While there are subtle differences, they have significant implications when choosing between Rollups and Validium. Rollups offer greater security but come at a higher cost, while Validium is more cost-effective but comes with a smaller trade-off in security.
