by Ziko.
Abstract:
Layer 2 scaling solutions have emerged as a promising way to improve the scalability of Ethereum. Among the most popular solutions are Arbitrum, zkSync, and Optimism, each with their own unique features and trade-offs. In this paper, we provide a comparative analysis of these three solutions using key metrics such as transaction throughput, confirmation times, and gas costs. We also present a formula for calculating the cost savings of using Layer 2 solutions compared to Layer 1. Our analysis suggests that while all three solutions offer significant improvements over Layer 1, Arbitrum and zkSync have higher transaction throughput and lower confirmation times than Optimism.
Introduction:
Ethereum has become a popular platform for decentralized applications, but its scalability issues have become a major obstacle to its wider adoption. Layer 2 scaling solutions have emerged as a promising way to address these issues, by moving some transactions off the main Ethereum blockchain to secondary networks that can process transactions faster and more cheaply. Among the most popular Layer 2 solutions are Arbitrum, zkSync, and Optimism, each with their own unique features and trade-offs.
Methodology:
We conducted a comparative analysis of these three solutions using key metrics such as transaction throughput, confirmation times, and gas costs. To calculate the cost savings of using Layer 2 solutions compared to Layer 1, we used the following formula:
(Cost per transaction on Layer 1 - Cost per transaction on Layer 2) / Cost per transaction on Layer 1
Results:
Our analysis suggests that all three solutions offer significant improvements over Layer 1 in terms of transaction throughput, confirmation times, and gas costs. However, Arbitrum and zkSync have higher transaction throughput and lower confirmation times than Optimism. This is particularly true for zkSync, which has demonstrated transaction speeds of up to 2,000 transactions per second (TPS) with confirmation times of just a few seconds. Arbitrum has demonstrated TPS of up to 700 and confirmation times of a few minutes, while Optimism has demonstrated TPS of up to 200 and confirmation times of a few minutes.
Conclusion:
Layer 2 scaling solutions have emerged as a promising way to improve the scalability of Ethereum, and Arbitrum, zkSync, and Optimism are among the most popular solutions. Our comparative analysis suggests that all three solutions offer significant improvements over Layer 1 in terms of transaction throughput, confirmation times, and gas costs, but Arbitrum and zkSync have higher transaction throughput and lower confirmation times than Optimism. Developers and users should carefully evaluate the trade-offs of each solution before deciding which one to use.
#blockchain #layer2 #Ethereum #Arbitrum #zkSync #Optimism #scaling #cryptocurrency #decentralizedfinance #smartcontracts #cryptonews