Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Most blockchains ask validators to see everything. ELVES changes that. The research team at Web3 Foundation built ELVES so that a random subset of validators can verify each block, rather than the full set, unless needed. Each validator does less work, but the network as a whole does more....

32,683 просмотров • 28 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Glamsterdam is the performance upgrade, I've already talked about it. But Hegotá is something different: scheduled for H2 2026, it's Ethereum's "cleanup and hardening" fork. 3 problems. 3 technical solutions. All shipping in one fork 👇 1️⃣ The problem Hegotá is actually solving Glamsterdam targets throughput: 10,000 TPS, 200M gas limit, parallel execution. The performance gap with Solana narrows materially. Hegotá targets something harder to quantify but more fundamental. After Glamsterdam, Ethereum will be fast. The question Hegotá answers is: fast and controlled by whom? The Tornado Cash sanctions in 2022 exposed the vulnerability. OFAC-compliant block builders (the entities that construct Ethereum blocks under MEV-Boost) began filtering Tornado Cash transactions entirely. Legitimate users with sanctioned addresses couldn't get transactions included. The block builders, sitting between validators and the mempool, had the practical ability to censor at will. ePBS (shipping in Glamsterdam) brings block building onchain and removes the external relay dependency. But it doesn't solve the censorship problem at the transaction inclusion level. A block builder onchain can still refuse to include specific transactions. FOCIL solves that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2️⃣ FOCIL: anti-censorship mechanism EIP-7805. Fork-Choice Enforced Inclusion Lists. The mechanism: every block slot, 17 participants are randomly selected from the validator set. Each one can submit a short list of transactions they want included in the next block. The block builder, even the onchain builder introduced by ePBS, must include those transactions or the block is invalid. 17 random validators per slot. Statistically, any attempt to censor a transaction requires controlling enough of the validator set to dominate every random selection simultaneously. At Ethereum's current validator count accounting for over 1 million, that requires controlling a supermajority of stake. In practice, FOCIL makes censorship at the block production level computationally and economically prohibitive for any entity that doesn't control an implausible share of staked ETH. → Block builders can no longer selectively exclude transactions → OFAC-compliant relays lose their censorship leverage at the inclusion layer → The Tornado Cash scenario becomes structurally impossible at protocol level → FOCIL prototype has a runnable implementation, entering multi-client devnet validation now This is the most significant censorship-resistance improvement in Ethereum's history. It's also the least discussed upgrade in CT because censorship resistance doesn't generate price speculation the way throughput numbers do. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3️⃣ Verkle Trees: the node operator revolution Currently, Ethereum nodes use Merkle Patricia Trees to store and verify state. To verify any piece of state, a node needs a "witness": a proof that includes all the intermediate hashes along the path from the root to the target data. For Ethereum's current state size, witnesses are large, bandwidth-heavy, and require the node to store significant local data. Verkle Trees replace this with a cryptographic structure that produces dramatically smaller witnesses. The same proof that requires kilobytes under the Merkle Patricia Tree model requires only hundreds of bytes under Verkle Trees. The consequence: → Node storage requirements drop by approximately 90% → Witnesses become small enough to transmit in real time during block propagation → "Stateless clients" become possible thanks to nodes that can verify the chain without storing full state locally → The hardware and bandwidth requirements to run a full Ethereum node drop to consumer levels permanently The long-term threat to Ethereum's decentralisation is not a 51% attack but the quiet centralization of the validator set as node hardware requirements creep upward with state growth. Verkle Trees break that trend structurally: → Anyone with a laptop and residential internet can run a full node post-Hegotá → The validator set becomes more accessible, not less, as Ethereum scales → Home stakers that represents the most decentralisation-aligned validator category stop being priced out by state growth The transition requires migrating every account and contract on the network from the Merkle Patricia Tree structure to Verkle Trees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4️⃣ Account Abstraction ERC-4337 account abstraction has existed as an application-layer standard since 2023. Hegotá brings native protocol-level account abstraction: the scope has been defined and the multi-client devnet validation phase is beginning now. What protocol-level AA enables that ERC-4337 doesn't: → Any Ethereum account can have programmable spending rules without deploying a separate smart contract → Social recovery becomes a native feature → Gasless transactions, batched operations, and custom signature schemes work at the protocol level rather than requiring wrapper contracts → The UX gap between crypto wallets and traditional financial apps narrows at the infrastructure level For DeFi specifically, account abstraction at the protocol level means liquidation bots, yield automation, and portfolio management strategies can be encoded directly into wallet logic. The current pattern of deploying separate smart contract accounts for every user who wants programmable behaviour disappears. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5️⃣ The thesis The Glamsterdam piece ended with a thesis about performance re-rating and monetary premium recovery. Hegotá's thesis is different and in some ways more durable. Ethereum in early 2027 (post both upgrades) will be a structurally different network from the one that exists today. Not only faster. Harder to censor. Cheaper to secure. More accessible to home validators. Native smart account functionality for every user. The market prices upgrades for what they do to throughput and fees because those metrics are immediately visible. Censorship resistance, node decentralisation, and wallet programmability compound over years rather than showing up in 30-day fee data. Hegotá is the upgrade that determines whether Ethereum is still genuinely decentralised and censorship-resistant five years from now... ...or whether it quietly became something controlled by a small set of sophisticated block builders and large node operators. That question doesn't generate CT threads. But if think about it is the one that actually matters!

Mercek

18,052 просмотров • 29 дней назад

After an incredibly successful week at Token2049, the highlight was undoubtedly presenting our SPIN whitepaper at the Bleeding Edge Summit! While still waiting for the official video, we would like to share a recording from the audience. With SPIN, we're introducing a revolutionary approach to building proof-of-stake blockchains. There is a well-known chicken and egg problem when it comes to launching a new proof-of-stake blockchain. You need high value at stake to achieve economic security, but at the same time, for achieving that, you already need to be secure. With SPIN, you can borrow security from well-established networks such as Polkadot or Ethereum. Unlike a Layer 2, which completely gives up chain sovereignty and frequently sacrifices scalability and throughput to satisfy Layer 1 validation protocols, SPIN maintains full sovereignty of the Fast Chain while still benefiting from the security of the Anchor Chain. Our SPIN protocol addresses this fundamental challenge by enabling a fast, sovereign chain to maintain and grow its economic security with its own validator network, while simultaneously leveraging an established anchor chain to provide a second layer of finality. With SPIN, we take an unlimited set of stakers, reduce it to a limited set of validators who can run very quickly, producing a consecutive sequence of blocks during their staker period. This design allows for blocks with very small block times, as low as 0.1 seconds and beyond. Our full SPIN whitepaper will be released soon.

QF Network

25,542 просмотров • 1 год назад

Most $SUI holders know one thing about the token: total supply is capped at 10 billion. They have never read the mechanic that makes that cap matter. It is called the Storage Fund. And it is the most important thing in the $SUI tokenomics docs that nobody is talking about. Here is exactly how it works: Every time a transaction adds data to the Sui blockchain, the user pays a storage fee. That fee does not go to validators directly. It goes into the Storage Fund, a pool of SUI that never fully depletes. Here is where it gets interesting. The Storage Fund has its own stake in the network. It earns staking rewards the same way every other stakeholder does. Those rewards are then distributed to validators to compensate them for storing historical data. This solves a problem every other blockchain ignores: When a new validator joins Sui, they have to store all the historical data from transactions that happened before they existed. Why would a new validator pay to store someone else's old data? The Storage Fund pays them for it. Past users who created the storage requirements in the first place funded the pool. Future validators get compensated from that pool indefinitely. The fund pays out only the returns on its capital, never the principal. It cannot be drained. It is designed to survive forever. Now here is the part that directly connects to $SUI token value. The Sui docs state this explicitly: Deflation is a feature of Sui, not a bug. Here is why: Total supply is capped at 10 billion SUI. As network activity increases, more transactions are processed. More transactions mean more storage fees flowing into the Storage Fund. As the Storage Fund grows, it holds more SUI. More SUI held in the fund means less SUI in active circulation. Less circulating supply against the same or growing demand means the value of each SUI token increases. Network growth directly reduces circulating supply. That is not speculation. That is the economic model built into the protocol at the architecture level. One more detail worth knowing: If you delete data you stored on chain, you receive a partial refund of your original storage fees. The system charges for storage, rewards deletion, and compounds the fund's stake indefinitely. Most people holding $SUI today are pricing the speed narrative: The parallel transaction processing. The sub-second finality. The Move language safety. They have not started pricing the storage fund deflation mechanic. That gap between what the tokenomics actually does and what the market currently understands is where the long-term thesis lives. The people who read the docs always buy before the people who read the price.

2xnmore

47,237 просмотров • 1 месяц назад