Ethereum is currently the most popular blockchain development platform, along with significant setbacks. It provides the ideal ground for the growth of many new innovative trends. This radical growth in the network activity has resulted in the optimistic rollups versus ZK rollups debate for identifying the best scaling solution. Rollups offer the ideal scalability solutions as transactions on Ethereum are gradually becoming quite expensive daily.
The 2-layer stability has been brought to solve the differences.
What is a Rollup?
Rollup is a blockchain scaling solution that allows for increased scalability and speed while maintaining security and decentralization. They execute multiple transactions outside layer one into a single compressed transaction date which is then posted in the blockchain on layer 1.
Rollups process transactions off-chain, primarily on a rollup specific chain, and then batches, compresses, and deliver the transaction data to the main Ethereum chain. As such, it lessens the strain on the main blockchain.
Differentiating Rollups into Optimistic and ZK Rollups
Rollups are one of the most popular choices among layer 2 scaling solutions, and they work by moving transaction processing off the chain. On the Ethereum chain, they ensure transaction data storage, facilitating security from the layer 1 network. Rollups involve smart contracts that can bundle the transaction data and move it off the chain for processing tasks.
The network participants, like sequences, manage the data and submit the highly compressed data to the main chain. Afterward, rollups move computation tasks off the chain while posting the compressed data on Ethereum leading network. They can also feature off-chain data availability that does not post data on Ethereum. Now, the ZK rollups versus Optimistic rollups debate becomes clearly evident in the difference between the verification methods on each rollup.
For example, ZK rollups create proofs that can help prove transaction validity, while on the contrary, optimistic rollups assume that all transactions are valid.
General differences between Optimistic and ZK Rollups.
The ZK Rollups might have a better appeal in the ZK rollups versus Optimistic rollups comparison for the element of cryptographic proof.
In Optimistic rollups, transactions are assumed valid, while ZK rollups rely on computation verification of state transitions through validity proofs. However, optimistic rollups are better production-ready with more accessible programmability.
Optimistic Rollups assume that the transaction batches are legitimate, while the ZK rollups need cryptographic validation.
Final Thoughts
The differences in the comparison of optimistic rollups versus ZK rollups showcase how both solutions can serve distinct use cases. Due to cryptographic proofs, ZK rollups tend to appear as the more alternative to optimistic rollups. However, the security concerns for optimistic roll ups can take a back seat with the facility of new crypto-economic incentives to users.
Optimistic rollups are a better candidate for projects with EVM compatibility. At the same time, ZK rollups with EVM compatibility can change the narrative for layer 2 scaling solutions.
Comments