According to Wu, Vitalik has elaborated on the evolution strategy of the security model for Ethereum Rollup. The security of Ethereum Rollup is defined in three stages (Stage 0, 1, 2) based on whether the security committee can cover the trustless proof system: Stage 0 has complete control by the security committee, Stage 1 requires 75% (at least 6/8) agreement with at least 3 members from outside, and Stage 2 intervenes only when verifiable errors occur in the proof system. Vitalik analyzes and explains through a mathematical model that considering each member of the security committee has a 10% “failure” probability, L2 should start deployment directly from Stage 1, rather than staying in Stage 0. At the same time, he also pointed out that it is not advisable to jump to Stage 2 too early, and suggested strengthening the security of the underlying proof system first. He recommended that data providers (such as L2beat) should showcase audit and maturity indicators of the proof system to assist in evaluation.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
Vitalik published an article explaining the evolution strategy of the security model for Ethereum Rollup.
According to Wu, Vitalik has elaborated on the evolution strategy of the security model for Ethereum Rollup. The security of Ethereum Rollup is defined in three stages (Stage 0, 1, 2) based on whether the security committee can cover the trustless proof system: Stage 0 has complete control by the security committee, Stage 1 requires 75% (at least 6/8) agreement with at least 3 members from outside, and Stage 2 intervenes only when verifiable errors occur in the proof system. Vitalik analyzes and explains through a mathematical model that considering each member of the security committee has a 10% “failure” probability, L2 should start deployment directly from Stage 1, rather than staying in Stage 0. At the same time, he also pointed out that it is not advisable to jump to Stage 2 too early, and suggested strengthening the security of the underlying proof system first. He recommended that data providers (such as L2beat) should showcase audit and maturity indicators of the proof system to assist in evaluation.