Increased Complexity: Implementing a consensus state Merkle tree and managing asynchronous claims adds complexity to the system, which can be challenging to develop and maintain.
Security Risks: The additional layer of reward allocation could introduce new vulnerabilities, requiring robust security measures to prevent fraudulent claims.
Resource Intensive: Building and maintaining the Merkle tree can be resource-intensive, potentially impacting performance and scalability.
Coordination Challenges*: Ensuring the reward system aligns with the overall consensus protocol requires careful coordination, which can be difficult to achieve consistently.
I appreciate the emphasis on ensuring both L1 and L2 finality. The separation of the two levels and the extra guarantees for L1 finality seem like they will add robustness to the protocol.
The penalty mechanism for Byzantine nodes sounds fair and effective. Combining slashing with reward incentives for discarding malicious nodes should keep the network more honest.
Having an outer protocol select a subcommittee for QBFT based on staking is interesting. It seems like a balanced way to ensure efficiency while avoiding too many validators at once.
Hi,
Yes, you are correct, we want this to happen faster, and this is one of the objectives. Current L1 finalization time is in the same order of magnitude for the different zk chains, and significantly smaller than the duration of the dispute period of optimistic rollups.
The Linea proposal covers key points such as achieving full decentralization, ensuring finality (both L1 and L2 levels), decentralizing the validation mechanism, and selecting block proposers through an auction mechanism to ensure activity and security. Overall, it uses external protocols, the QBFT consensus, and proof-of-stake to prevent validator dominance, enhancing decentralization and security while incentivizing node participation.
Questions and Suggestions:
L1 vs. L2 Finality: How will L1 and L2 finality be consistently aligned? Are there contingency plans for Byzantine nodes under network strain?
Proposer Auction Mechanism: The auction promotes decentralization but should monitor thresholds to prevent large-holder monopolies.
Reward Fairness: Are there incentives specifically for smaller participants?
Linea 提案讲了几个关键点，像如何实现完全去中心化、确保最终确定性（L1和L2级别）、验证机制去中心化，还有如何通过拍卖机制选区块提议者，并保证活性和安全性。大致意思就是：为了避免一个验证者节点独大，Linea 要通过外部协议、共识协议（QBFT）和权益证明来保证整个L2链运行得稳当。你可以理解为这是加强去中心化和安全性的一套组合拳，同时在奖励分配方面也有设计，以提升节点的积极性。
Enhance Transparency: During the implementation process, increase external auditing and reporting mechanisms to ensure the community can understand progress and challenges, enhancing transparency and trust.
Optimize Incentive Mechanisms: For block proposers and validators, consider designing diverse reward systems to attract more participants, increasing network activity and security.
Strengthen Security Measures: In protocol design, further consider potential security risks, especially those related to Byzantine nodes, to ensure the network remains stable and efficient under all circumstances.
Encourage Community Participation: Encourage more community members to participate in proposals, testing, and feedback, forming a broader consensus that promotes the healthy development of the ecosystem.
Focus on User Experience: While implementing technology, pay attention to user experience and ease of operation, ensuring that end users can easily use and understand this new technology.
Thank you for this proposal and for your efforts toward making Linea a fully decentralized L2 network. The shift to using the QBFT protocol for L2 finalization with distributed block validation is a significant step that could greatly enhance the security and resilience of the network. The auction mechanism for selecting block proposers is an innovative solution that promotes decentralization and inclusivity. We also appreciate the inclusion of recovery measures in the case of an empty or inactive validator set. However, we would like to learn more about the criteria for selecting parameters for L1 finalization and reverse auctions to determine costs. We believe that with the suggested improvements, this project can achieve a high level of security and decentralization.
What an exciting and promising development for the Linea project! It’s wonderful to see such dedicated teamwork from Simon Brown, Mikhail Kalinin, Roberto Saltini, and Nicolas Liochon, whose contributions have set the stage for an innovative and fully decentralized L2 chain.
The transition to L2-finality through a distributed Byzantine agreement protocol is a fantastic step towards enhancing trust and decentralization. The incorporation of QBFT consensus brings the best of efficiency and reliability, ensuring that any node can actively participate in the validation process. This truly embodies the spirit of inclusivity, inviting a diverse range of nodes to contribute to the network’s health and security!
The idea of externalizing the block proposer role adds an extra layer of excitement! The on-chain auction mechanism not only enhances decentralization but also encourages healthy competition among nodes. It’s amazing to see how these strategies, like the sealed bid auction and safeguards against multi-block MEV, help nurture a transparent ecosystem where fairness reigns.
I love the focus on recovery and liveness too! Even in unlikely scenarios, having a safety net to allow any node to start finalizing after a period of inactivity underscores a robust design that prioritizes resilience.
Overall, the innovative approaches to finalizing Linea’s blocks, reward allocation, and maintaining accountability through the Merkle tree are truly commendable. The future looks bright, and the joy of seeing these ideas come to life in the decentralized realm is palpable! Here’s to the exciting journey ahead for Linea!
