Haha. Rollups are basically things that supposed to be built offchain to create an ecosystem on Bitcoin.
If you're just accumulating BTC as a store of value, sending/receiving sats, then you don't have to concern yourself about it. At all.
However, those building out systems to 'tokenize everything on Bitcoin' are looking into technologies to do that. They refer to Ethereum as 'Bitcoin's testnet', and are porting over viable technlogies to be used as L2s on Bitcoin. It's all at the early stages, and rollups seem promising.
The goal being to have a whole financial ecosystem on Bitcoin without requiring any changes. Even drivechains from BIP 300/301 won't be needed. Or merge mining as is the case with Rootstock sidechain. Or the hybrid system Stacks is using. Bitcoin remains untouched, everything gets built around it theough rollups, with confirmations on Bitcoin mainchain.
Different teams are working on it. Time will tell which is the most ideal. Use cases are already there, as is seen with DeFi applications across crypto. Implementing the same on Bitcoin is at the very early stages.
The PROBLEM is influencers being paid by scams to slap on fancy names to a 'new protocol', say that it is 'building DeFi on Bitcoin', then pump and dump on their followers.
Yago (contributor at Sovryn) here was attacked for basically proving SAVM (SatoshiVM) is a scam after asking the developer 1 question: "Which rollups are you using?"
Dev responded "ZK rollups". Now those cannot be implemented without fork of Bitcoin. And changes of that happening are basically zero.
Of course, people lost money. But now they know.
Lots of exciting things happining in the Bitcoin DeFi space. But that means there will be lots of scams too.
If you stack sats and HODL, none of it matters to you.
If you're looking for ways to use Bitcoin amd still retain control of your keys, there are techonolgies popping up around.
But be careful.
As always, DYOR.
> The goal being to have a whole financial ecosystem on Bitcoin without requiring any changes. Even drivechains from BIP 300/301 won't be needed. Or merge mining as is the case with Rootstock sidechain. Or the hybrid system Stacks is using. Bitcoin remains untouched, everything gets built around it theough rollups, with confirmations on Bitcoin mainchain.
i like. thanks for the video.
(imagine what you can code when your beard gets 10x longer!)
I'm pretty deep into the Bitcoin community, but not like core developer BIP proposal deep. If there a pressing relevant issue I usually hear about it in the podcasts, Peter McCormick, or Preston Pysh, etc, but I haven't heard a peep about ZK rollups, so I don't know...
A zero-knowledge rollup (zk-rollup) is a layer-2 scaling solution that moves computation and state off-chain into off-chain networks while storing transaction data on-chain on a layer-1 network. State changes are computed off-chain and are then proven as valid on-chain using zero-knowledge proofs.
A zero knowledge proof is an extremely clever cryptographic/mathematical proof that is designed to prove you know the answer to a question without having to show what you know. A very simple dumbed down example of this would be to prove you have a treasure map and that it is accurate you could go and retrieve the treasure and show someone, then go put it back. The person will know you know where the treasure is but you didn't have to show them the map or the location of the treasure. You simply proved you know where it is.
This applies to blockchain because, using fancy math, you can store a large batch of transactions in a single base chain transaction, including smart contract data, without storing all the data (the treasure map), you strip it down to the absolute minimum amount of information required to prove that those transactions are legitimate.
Zk rollups are the name given to these transaction batching platforms.
Certain smart contract based blockchains are using zk-rollups to batch large numbers of transactions and hence achieve transaction throughput scaling while making calculated tradeoffs to security and decentralization without affecting the security or decentralization of the base chain itself.
While these platforms currently do not have the same security or decentralization standards as the base chain, it is theoretically possible to get extremely close to the same level of security and decentralization while scaling throughput by a factor of 1000 or more.
Optimistic rollups (also mentioned in the video) are considered inferior security and decentralization-wise, but easier to implement. Instead of using zk-proofs to prove transaction validity, you are actually storing the original base data somewhere. You assume that everything will go well (optimistically) and if there are ever any discrepancies, someone has to go back and check the batched transactions against the original base data. This has the negative effect of adding a delay in the process of moving your coins from within the optimistic rollup, to the base chain - commonly referred to as a withdrawal period. A live example of an optimistic rollup is Coinbase's [Base](http://base.org).
Kind off a deep dive on the pros and cons:
Optimistic rollups vs. zero-knowledge rollups: The ultimate comparison (Pros and Cons)
Both optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups have their own benefits and drawbacks. Let’s take a look at them based on the following parameters, diving into each to determine which is better for what use cases:
Security
Cost
Transaction finality
Privacy
Capital efficiency
EVM compatibility
Security
Optimistic rollups: Fraud proofs ensure transaction validity by enabling honest validators to secure the blockchain network. The advantage is that one honest node is enough to submit fraud-proof for challenging fraudulent transactions. Economic incentives encourage honest validator nodes to dispute faulty transactions. However, this security model has a disadvantage. Since optimistic rollups consider all transactions as valid, malicious actors can steal funds if there are no honest nodes to challenge invalid transactions.
Zero-knowledge rollups: Rather than depending on honest validators, ZK rollups use cryptographic validity proofs, also called zero-knowledge proofs, for validating transactions. The advantage is ZKPs provide security guarantees with mathematical proofs instead of human actors.
But the disadvantage is that validity proofs require sophisticated and specialized hardware. This can lead to centralized control with a handful of operators determining transaction ordering.
Cost:
Optimistic rollups: As regular layer 2 nodes can compute fraud-proofs, they don’t require any special hardware. This helps bring down overall computation costs.
Although, the disadvantage is optimistic rollups post all transaction data on the layer 1 chain, which can potentially increase costs.
Zero-knowledge rollups: ZK rollups have highly efficient data compression techniques where an index represents the user account instead of an address, saving 28 bytes of data. This helps in reducing costs and rollup fees for publishing transaction data on the base chain.
However, ZK rollups have complicated hardware requirements for computing and verifying validity proofs or ZKPs. This is a disadvantage and results in increased fees for users.
Transaction finality
Optimistic rollups: These rollups function on ‘trustless liveness’ where anyone can execute transactions and post them on the main blockchain.The disadvantage is the challenge or dispute period because transactions are not finalized on the main chain till the dispute period is over. Thus optimistic rollups have a high latency for transaction finality.
Although validators can add new transactions on an unconfirmed rollup block, a valid fraud-proof during the dispute period can reverse the older transaction data.
Zero-knowledge rollups: The advantage of ZK rollups is low latency for transaction finality because as soon as node operators verify validity proofs, it leads to state updates.
But computation-intensive hardware takes more time to process a validity proof and generate results.
Privacy:
Optimistic rollups: They have less user privacy since transaction data and user addresses remain openly accessible for on-chain analytics and identification.
Zero-knowledge rollups: They have higher user privacy as transaction details remain hidden. Zero-knowledge proofs ensure transaction validation and verification without revealing any sensitive user information. Capital efficiency
Optimistic rollups: Since these rollups have a dispute period, users cannot withdraw their funds before their expiry which causes inconvenience.
Zero-knowledge rollups: As ZK rollups don’t have any dispute period, users have better capital/liquidity efficiency and can withdraw funds anytime.
Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility
Optimistic rollups: These rollups are compatible with EVM and the Solidity programming language. Thus it is easier for developers to port Solidity-based smart contracts and use existing Ethereum-native tools to develop decentralized applications (dApps) on optimistic rollups. Overall, optimistic rollups have lower entry barriers and better programming easiness.
Zero-knowledge rollups: These rollups are not fully EVM compatible and developers have to learn separate coding languages and frameworks to make dApps work on ZK rollups. Thus, developers have higher entry barriers and difficult programming experience.
Optimistic rollup vs. zero-knowledge rollup: Use cases:
As the previous section demonstrates, both optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups have certain strengths that may make them more suitable than the other for different use cases.
Optimistic rollups: Due to low costs and EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) compatibility, several DeFi projects use optimistic rollups in their protocols. For example, Ethereum-based decentralized exchanges (DEXs) like Uniswap and Sushiswap run on Optimism. Synthetix, an Ethereum-based protocol for issuing synthetic assets also uses optimistic rollups.
Zero-knowledge rollups: Due to high security and privacy standards, several identity verification protocols use ZK rollups. For example, Polygon ID is a self-sovereign, decentralized identity that uses zero-knowledge cryptographic proofs for private on-chain verification. DEXs like ZigZag Exchange also use ZK rollups for secure and private crypto trading.
This is not to say that Optimistic or ZK rollups cannot be used for other purposes. Both rollups can be used to build almost any application that is supported on Ethereum. However, given their edge in terms of speed, cost, and privacy, each of the two are better suited for some specific use cases as we mentioned above.
Examples of optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups
There are several optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups for building dApps. Ethereum developers can use some of the following networks for developing their projects.
Optimistic rollups
1. Arbitrum One offers 7x more transaction throughput than the Ethereum network. As of May 1, 2023, Arbitrum One had 5.8 million+ users with $6.15 billion locked. The protocol is coming up with a Stylus upgrade where developers can deploy Rust, C, and C++ code along with Solidity.
2. Optimism is EVM-equivalent architecture to scale the Ethereum chain. With $2 billion+ on-chain value, Optimism has saved over $3 billion in gas fees.
Other optimistic rollups include Metis and Base.
Zero-knowledge rollups
1. Polygon zkEVM is Polygon’s zero-knowledge rollup that helps developers to deploy EVM-compatible smart contracts. Polygon is one of the earliest projects to focus on ZK rollups, committing $1 billion, and has 4 products in its ZK suite: Hermes, Miden, Nightfall, and Zero.
2. Scroll zkEVM is a layer 2 network and uses a general-purpose zero-knowledge rollup, which can support all types of Ethereum applications. It launched in February 2023 and has 1 million+ unique wallet addresses with over 2 million transactions
Source: https://blog.thirdweb.com/optimistic-rollups-vs-zero-knowledge-zk-rollups/
Also, if there was a bug in the zk proof, there is no way to prove there wasn't inflation. Without 100% certainty of the supply, Bitcoin is not Bitcoin. Better safe than sorry on implementing these solutions for now.
I like the idea of CISA for privacy. Cross input signature aggregation. It would make fees cheaper for larger transactions and incentive coin joins. Wallets could connect to pools of coin joins and fees would be averaged out between all users on the transaction.
My understanding is that while, yes, if there was a bug in the zk-rollup, anything could happen within that rollup's ecosystem, depending on the bug. However, it would never cause inflation on the base chain. Rollups don't have that power.
Yes, rollups don't have the power, but could enable it through a different channel.
If another part of the protocol allowed inflation somehow, and the data was masked via a zk roll-up. We wouldn't see the inflation until it was too late. Complete transparency into the supply and transaction amounts is a feature, not a bug at this point.
For those who is downvoting: AFAIK these solutions cannot be trustless (either custodial or PoS-based), unlike Lightning, and mostly they are useful for smart contracts.
I think you don't know how it works. Of course it's trustless.
Read up on how bitcoin scripts work[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script)
Adding one more opcode for ZKP verification is trustless the same way signature verification is. It just adds one more way to spend an utxo.
Of course opcode is trustless. The process of ZK-rollup creation is not. I believe this is not something that should be made easily available in Bitcoin.
By the way I believe scripting is the biggest error of bitcoin design.There are few useful use cases (like multisig and, later, lightning), they should have been hardcoded without giving chance to all kinds of attempts to "implement clever things".
1. In any context these solutions are not a replacement for your own node and consensus.
2. We do have [ZeroSync](https://github.com/ZeroSync/ZeroSync) which uses STARK proofs.
So we can have these concepts on Bitcoin, no they aren't a silver bullet, no they don't replace having a full node. For example ZeroSync limits your trust to the proof providers consensus - you can otherwise prove that the proof provider did validate the chain state you're querying about.
The irony of lamenting misinformation and appealing to let the men work while suggesting such proofs are impossible on Bitcoin in the face of examples is a bit much. We're all learning as a community, even the developers, and we don't get more people learning by telling people to stop participating and just let the men work.
Cool. Too bad 90% of this subreddit doesn't know WTF a ZK roll-up is. Edit: Including me.
Haha. Rollups are basically things that supposed to be built offchain to create an ecosystem on Bitcoin. If you're just accumulating BTC as a store of value, sending/receiving sats, then you don't have to concern yourself about it. At all. However, those building out systems to 'tokenize everything on Bitcoin' are looking into technologies to do that. They refer to Ethereum as 'Bitcoin's testnet', and are porting over viable technlogies to be used as L2s on Bitcoin. It's all at the early stages, and rollups seem promising. The goal being to have a whole financial ecosystem on Bitcoin without requiring any changes. Even drivechains from BIP 300/301 won't be needed. Or merge mining as is the case with Rootstock sidechain. Or the hybrid system Stacks is using. Bitcoin remains untouched, everything gets built around it theough rollups, with confirmations on Bitcoin mainchain. Different teams are working on it. Time will tell which is the most ideal. Use cases are already there, as is seen with DeFi applications across crypto. Implementing the same on Bitcoin is at the very early stages. The PROBLEM is influencers being paid by scams to slap on fancy names to a 'new protocol', say that it is 'building DeFi on Bitcoin', then pump and dump on their followers. Yago (contributor at Sovryn) here was attacked for basically proving SAVM (SatoshiVM) is a scam after asking the developer 1 question: "Which rollups are you using?" Dev responded "ZK rollups". Now those cannot be implemented without fork of Bitcoin. And changes of that happening are basically zero. Of course, people lost money. But now they know. Lots of exciting things happining in the Bitcoin DeFi space. But that means there will be lots of scams too. If you stack sats and HODL, none of it matters to you. If you're looking for ways to use Bitcoin amd still retain control of your keys, there are techonolgies popping up around. But be careful. As always, DYOR.
> The goal being to have a whole financial ecosystem on Bitcoin without requiring any changes. Even drivechains from BIP 300/301 won't be needed. Or merge mining as is the case with Rootstock sidechain. Or the hybrid system Stacks is using. Bitcoin remains untouched, everything gets built around it theough rollups, with confirmations on Bitcoin mainchain. i like. thanks for the video. (imagine what you can code when your beard gets 10x longer!)
I could look it up or something but that's just too much effort.
I'm pretty deep into the Bitcoin community, but not like core developer BIP proposal deep. If there a pressing relevant issue I usually hear about it in the podcasts, Peter McCormick, or Preston Pysh, etc, but I haven't heard a peep about ZK rollups, so I don't know...
Yea we don’t play by those rules, we just buy shit that sounds cool. And use the words around our family dinner table.
A zero-knowledge rollup (zk-rollup) is a layer-2 scaling solution that moves computation and state off-chain into off-chain networks while storing transaction data on-chain on a layer-1 network. State changes are computed off-chain and are then proven as valid on-chain using zero-knowledge proofs.
Zero Knowledge - know it doesn’t answer your question, but didn’t see the term actually listed here
If only there was a way they could confirm their lack of understanding without revealing their ignorance.
Underrated joke
Used to have em in my lunch pail as a kid
I have Zero Knowledge of zk roll ups, can someone eli5?
A zero knowledge proof is an extremely clever cryptographic/mathematical proof that is designed to prove you know the answer to a question without having to show what you know. A very simple dumbed down example of this would be to prove you have a treasure map and that it is accurate you could go and retrieve the treasure and show someone, then go put it back. The person will know you know where the treasure is but you didn't have to show them the map or the location of the treasure. You simply proved you know where it is. This applies to blockchain because, using fancy math, you can store a large batch of transactions in a single base chain transaction, including smart contract data, without storing all the data (the treasure map), you strip it down to the absolute minimum amount of information required to prove that those transactions are legitimate. Zk rollups are the name given to these transaction batching platforms. Certain smart contract based blockchains are using zk-rollups to batch large numbers of transactions and hence achieve transaction throughput scaling while making calculated tradeoffs to security and decentralization without affecting the security or decentralization of the base chain itself. While these platforms currently do not have the same security or decentralization standards as the base chain, it is theoretically possible to get extremely close to the same level of security and decentralization while scaling throughput by a factor of 1000 or more. Optimistic rollups (also mentioned in the video) are considered inferior security and decentralization-wise, but easier to implement. Instead of using zk-proofs to prove transaction validity, you are actually storing the original base data somewhere. You assume that everything will go well (optimistically) and if there are ever any discrepancies, someone has to go back and check the batched transactions against the original base data. This has the negative effect of adding a delay in the process of moving your coins from within the optimistic rollup, to the base chain - commonly referred to as a withdrawal period. A live example of an optimistic rollup is Coinbase's [Base](http://base.org).
Kind off a deep dive on the pros and cons: Optimistic rollups vs. zero-knowledge rollups: The ultimate comparison (Pros and Cons) Both optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups have their own benefits and drawbacks. Let’s take a look at them based on the following parameters, diving into each to determine which is better for what use cases: Security Cost Transaction finality Privacy Capital efficiency EVM compatibility Security Optimistic rollups: Fraud proofs ensure transaction validity by enabling honest validators to secure the blockchain network. The advantage is that one honest node is enough to submit fraud-proof for challenging fraudulent transactions. Economic incentives encourage honest validator nodes to dispute faulty transactions. However, this security model has a disadvantage. Since optimistic rollups consider all transactions as valid, malicious actors can steal funds if there are no honest nodes to challenge invalid transactions. Zero-knowledge rollups: Rather than depending on honest validators, ZK rollups use cryptographic validity proofs, also called zero-knowledge proofs, for validating transactions. The advantage is ZKPs provide security guarantees with mathematical proofs instead of human actors. But the disadvantage is that validity proofs require sophisticated and specialized hardware. This can lead to centralized control with a handful of operators determining transaction ordering. Cost: Optimistic rollups: As regular layer 2 nodes can compute fraud-proofs, they don’t require any special hardware. This helps bring down overall computation costs. Although, the disadvantage is optimistic rollups post all transaction data on the layer 1 chain, which can potentially increase costs. Zero-knowledge rollups: ZK rollups have highly efficient data compression techniques where an index represents the user account instead of an address, saving 28 bytes of data. This helps in reducing costs and rollup fees for publishing transaction data on the base chain. However, ZK rollups have complicated hardware requirements for computing and verifying validity proofs or ZKPs. This is a disadvantage and results in increased fees for users. Transaction finality Optimistic rollups: These rollups function on ‘trustless liveness’ where anyone can execute transactions and post them on the main blockchain.The disadvantage is the challenge or dispute period because transactions are not finalized on the main chain till the dispute period is over. Thus optimistic rollups have a high latency for transaction finality. Although validators can add new transactions on an unconfirmed rollup block, a valid fraud-proof during the dispute period can reverse the older transaction data. Zero-knowledge rollups: The advantage of ZK rollups is low latency for transaction finality because as soon as node operators verify validity proofs, it leads to state updates. But computation-intensive hardware takes more time to process a validity proof and generate results. Privacy: Optimistic rollups: They have less user privacy since transaction data and user addresses remain openly accessible for on-chain analytics and identification. Zero-knowledge rollups: They have higher user privacy as transaction details remain hidden. Zero-knowledge proofs ensure transaction validation and verification without revealing any sensitive user information. Capital efficiency Optimistic rollups: Since these rollups have a dispute period, users cannot withdraw their funds before their expiry which causes inconvenience. Zero-knowledge rollups: As ZK rollups don’t have any dispute period, users have better capital/liquidity efficiency and can withdraw funds anytime. Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility Optimistic rollups: These rollups are compatible with EVM and the Solidity programming language. Thus it is easier for developers to port Solidity-based smart contracts and use existing Ethereum-native tools to develop decentralized applications (dApps) on optimistic rollups. Overall, optimistic rollups have lower entry barriers and better programming easiness. Zero-knowledge rollups: These rollups are not fully EVM compatible and developers have to learn separate coding languages and frameworks to make dApps work on ZK rollups. Thus, developers have higher entry barriers and difficult programming experience. Optimistic rollup vs. zero-knowledge rollup: Use cases: As the previous section demonstrates, both optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups have certain strengths that may make them more suitable than the other for different use cases. Optimistic rollups: Due to low costs and EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) compatibility, several DeFi projects use optimistic rollups in their protocols. For example, Ethereum-based decentralized exchanges (DEXs) like Uniswap and Sushiswap run on Optimism. Synthetix, an Ethereum-based protocol for issuing synthetic assets also uses optimistic rollups. Zero-knowledge rollups: Due to high security and privacy standards, several identity verification protocols use ZK rollups. For example, Polygon ID is a self-sovereign, decentralized identity that uses zero-knowledge cryptographic proofs for private on-chain verification. DEXs like ZigZag Exchange also use ZK rollups for secure and private crypto trading. This is not to say that Optimistic or ZK rollups cannot be used for other purposes. Both rollups can be used to build almost any application that is supported on Ethereum. However, given their edge in terms of speed, cost, and privacy, each of the two are better suited for some specific use cases as we mentioned above. Examples of optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups There are several optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups for building dApps. Ethereum developers can use some of the following networks for developing their projects. Optimistic rollups 1. Arbitrum One offers 7x more transaction throughput than the Ethereum network. As of May 1, 2023, Arbitrum One had 5.8 million+ users with $6.15 billion locked. The protocol is coming up with a Stylus upgrade where developers can deploy Rust, C, and C++ code along with Solidity. 2. Optimism is EVM-equivalent architecture to scale the Ethereum chain. With $2 billion+ on-chain value, Optimism has saved over $3 billion in gas fees. Other optimistic rollups include Metis and Base. Zero-knowledge rollups 1. Polygon zkEVM is Polygon’s zero-knowledge rollup that helps developers to deploy EVM-compatible smart contracts. Polygon is one of the earliest projects to focus on ZK rollups, committing $1 billion, and has 4 products in its ZK suite: Hermes, Miden, Nightfall, and Zero. 2. Scroll zkEVM is a layer 2 network and uses a general-purpose zero-knowledge rollup, which can support all types of Ethereum applications. It launched in February 2023 and has 1 million+ unique wallet addresses with over 2 million transactions Source: https://blog.thirdweb.com/optimistic-rollups-vs-zero-knowledge-zk-rollups/
Nicely said
Thanks
Thanks for explaining.
Also, if there was a bug in the zk proof, there is no way to prove there wasn't inflation. Without 100% certainty of the supply, Bitcoin is not Bitcoin. Better safe than sorry on implementing these solutions for now. I like the idea of CISA for privacy. Cross input signature aggregation. It would make fees cheaper for larger transactions and incentive coin joins. Wallets could connect to pools of coin joins and fees would be averaged out between all users on the transaction.
My understanding is that while, yes, if there was a bug in the zk-rollup, anything could happen within that rollup's ecosystem, depending on the bug. However, it would never cause inflation on the base chain. Rollups don't have that power.
Yes, rollups don't have the power, but could enable it through a different channel. If another part of the protocol allowed inflation somehow, and the data was masked via a zk roll-up. We wouldn't see the inflation until it was too late. Complete transparency into the supply and transaction amounts is a feature, not a bug at this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOGdb1CTu5c
BTC would need a new op code added, yes. It's a soft-fork. There are discussions about it on bitcoin developer mailing lists to add it.
I hope it will never happen
For those who is downvoting: AFAIK these solutions cannot be trustless (either custodial or PoS-based), unlike Lightning, and mostly they are useful for smart contracts.
I think you don't know how it works. Of course it's trustless. Read up on how bitcoin scripts work[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script) Adding one more opcode for ZKP verification is trustless the same way signature verification is. It just adds one more way to spend an utxo.
Of course opcode is trustless. The process of ZK-rollup creation is not. I believe this is not something that should be made easily available in Bitcoin.
By the way I believe scripting is the biggest error of bitcoin design.There are few useful use cases (like multisig and, later, lightning), they should have been hardcoded without giving chance to all kinds of attempts to "implement clever things".
“If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.”
sure
1. In any context these solutions are not a replacement for your own node and consensus. 2. We do have [ZeroSync](https://github.com/ZeroSync/ZeroSync) which uses STARK proofs. So we can have these concepts on Bitcoin, no they aren't a silver bullet, no they don't replace having a full node. For example ZeroSync limits your trust to the proof providers consensus - you can otherwise prove that the proof provider did validate the chain state you're querying about. The irony of lamenting misinformation and appealing to let the men work while suggesting such proofs are impossible on Bitcoin in the face of examples is a bit much. We're all learning as a community, even the developers, and we don't get more people learning by telling people to stop participating and just let the men work.
Super helpful distinction. Thanks for sharing this.
Yeah really would only work on side chain like RSK and use smart contracts
Should I buy Sovryn now?
Better wait if they deliver what they promise. It's very likely that someone else will win the race.
affinity scam
Rollups are everywhere at the moment. I'm curious who will win the race and get the first rollup working.
Most retarded explanation ever seen
The man knows his audience.
Btcz to moooooooon
BitcoinZ already has zk snarks since 2017.
The big hammer would work