📢 Gate Square #MBG Posting Challenge# is Live— Post for MBG Rewards!
Want a share of 1,000 MBG? Get involved now—show your insights and real participation to become an MBG promoter!
💰 20 top posts will each win 50 MBG!
How to Participate:
1️⃣ Research the MBG project
Share your in-depth views on MBG’s fundamentals, community governance, development goals, and tokenomics, etc.
2️⃣ Join and share your real experience
Take part in MBG activities (CandyDrop, Launchpool, or spot trading), and post your screenshots, earnings, or step-by-step tutorials. Content can include profits, beginner-friendl
Vitalik: The quality of the underlying proof systems of L2 networks is equally important and should gradually enter the second phase as they develop.
Odaily News Regarding the naming label #BattleTested for L2 network Stage 2 proposed by community member Daniel Wang, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik responded in a post on X platform, stating: "This is a good reminder: the second stage is not the only factor affecting security; the quality of the underlying proof system is also equally important. This is a simplified mathematical model that illustrates when to enter the second stage:" Each member of the Security Council has a 10% independent "break" chance; we consider activity failure (refusal to sign or key inaccessible) and security failure (signing the wrong thing or key being hacked) as equally probable; goal: to minimize the probability of protocol collapse under the above assumptions. *Stage 0 Security Council is 4/7, Stage 1 is 6/8; please note that these assumptions are very imperfect. In reality, the members of the Security Council have a "common mode failure": they may collude, or all be coerced or hacked in the same way, etc. This makes both Stage 0 and Stage 1 less secure than shown in the model, so entering Stage 2 earlier than implied by the model is the best choice. Also, note that by turning the proof system itself into a multisig of multiple independent systems, the probability of a proof system crashing can be greatly reduced (which is what I advocated in my previous proposal). I suspect that this will be the case for all Phase 2 deployments in previous years. With that in mind, here's the chart. The X-axis is the probability of proving the collapse of the system. The Y-axis is the probability of a protocol crash. As the quality of the attestation system improves, the optimal phase moves from Phase 0 to Phase 1 and then from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Using a Phase 0 quality proof system for Phase 2 is the worst. In short, @l2beat ideally should display proof system audits and maturity indicators (preferably proof system implementations rather than the entire summary, so that we can reuse them) and stages.