解读Vitalik新文:为什么Blob空间未被高效使用的Rollup陷入了发展困境?

Odaily星球日报Published on 2024-04-01Last updated on 2024-04-01

Abstract

坎昆升级后性能够用了,但 Vitalik 对 Rollup 发展忧心忡忡。

原文作者:Haotian

如何理解 Vitalik Buterin 新文对以太坊的扩容思考?有人说 Vitalik 给 Blob 铭文喊单,离大谱。那么 Blob 数据包如何工作?坎昆升级后 Blob 空间为啥得不到高效利用?DAS 数据可用性采样是为分片做准备?

在我看来,坎昆升级后性能够用了,Vitalik 是对 Rollup 发展忧心忡忡。Why?接下来,我来谈谈我的理解:

1)之前多次解释过,Blob 是和 EVM calldata 脱钩的一个直接可被共识层调取的临时数据包,直接好处是,EVM 在执行交易时可以不访问 Blob 数据,因此产生不了较高的执行层计算费用。

目前平衡一系列因素, 1 个 Blob 大小为 128 kb,一笔 Batch 给主网的交易最多携带两个 Blob,理想情况下,一个主网区块最终目标是承载 16 MB 大约 128 个 Blob 数据包。

因此 Rollup 项目方要尽可能平衡 Blob 区块数量、TPS 交易容量、Blob 主网节点存储成本等因素,目标以最优性价比使用 Blob 空间。

以 Optimism 为例,目前一天大约 50 万笔交易,平均每 2 分钟 Batch 一次交易到主网,一次携带 1 个 Blob 数据包。为啥带 1 个,因为 TPS 就这么多用不到,当然也可以携带两个,那每个 Blob 的容量都不会满,却额外增加了存储费用,没必要。

当随着 Rollup 链下交易量的提升,比如每天要处理 5, 000 万笔交易怎么办呢? 1、Compress 压缩每笔 Batch 的交易量,尽可能让 Blob 空间内容量大量的交易;2、增加 Blob 数量;3、缩短 Batch 交易的频次;

2)由于主网区块承载数据量受 Gas Limit 以及存储成本的影响, 1 个 Slot 区块 128 个 Blob 是理想状态,目前用不到那么多,Optimism 每 2 分钟才用 1 个,留给 layer 2 项目方提升 TPS,扩大市场用户量和生态繁荣度的空间还有很大很大。

因此,坎昆升级后一段时间内,Rollup 在使用 Blob 的数量、频次以及 Blob 空间竞价使用等方面并不“卷”。

之所以 Vitalik 提 Blobscription 铭文是因为,这类打铭文能短暂增加交易量导致 Blob 使用需求增加,因此会扩大体积,用铭文做例子可以更深刻理解 Blob 的工作机制,Vitalik 真正想表达的内容和铭文并没有太大关系。

因为理论情况下,若有 layer 2 项目方高频次且高容量向主网 Batch 交易,且每次把 Blob 区块拉满,只要它愿意承担高额的伪造交易 Batch 成本就会影响其他 layer 2 对 Blob 的正常使用,但目前情况下,就像有人买算力对 BTC 进行 51% 硬分叉攻击一样,理论上可行,但实际缺乏利益动机。

Blob 的引入目标是为了减负 EVM,而提升节点的运维能力,无疑为 Rollup 量身订做的方案。显然,当下并没有被高效使用,二层使用 Gas 费用会在“较低”区间稳定很长一段时间。这会给 layer 2 市场长时间的“增兵屯粮”黄金发展窗口。

3)那么,假使有一天 layer 2 市场繁荣到一定程度,每天 Batch 到主网的交易成巨量,目前 Blob 数据包不够用怎么办?以太坊早已给出了解决方案:采用数据可用性抽样技术(DAS):

简单理解,就是把原先需要一个节点存储的数据可以同时分布在多个节点内,比如,每个节点存储全部 Blob 数据的 1/8 , 8 个节点组成一个小组来满足 DA 能力,相当于把目前的 Blob 存储容量又扩大了 8 倍。这其实也是未来 Sharding 分片阶段要做的事情。

但目前 Vitalik 多次来重申这个,饶有韵味,似乎在告诫广大 layer 2 项目方:不要总抱怨以太坊 DA 能力贵,以你们现在 TPS 容量都没把 Blob 数据包的能力开发到极致,赶紧加大火力搞生态,扩大用户和交易量吧,别总想着 DA 出逃搞一键发链的花活。

后边,Vitalik 又补充了一句,认为目前核心 rollup 中,只有 Arbitrum 达到了 Stage 1 ,虽然 DeGate、Fuel 等达到了 Stage 2 ,但他们还没有被更广泛群体熟悉。Stage 2 是 Rollup 安全性的最终目标,极少数 Rollup 达到了 Stage 1 ,而大部分 Rollup 都在 Stage 0 阶段,可见 Rollup 行业的发展着实让 Vitalik 忧心忡忡啊。

4)其实,单纯就扩容瓶颈问题而言,Rollup layer 2 方案可提升性能的空间还很大。

1、通过数据压缩更高效地使用 Blob 空间,OP-Rollup 目前有专门的 Compressor 组件来进行此工作,ZK-Rollup 本身链下压缩 SNARK/STARK 证明向主网 submit 就是在“压缩”;

2、尽可能降低 layer 2 对主网的依赖,在特殊情况下才使用乐观证明技术来保障L2安全,比如,Plasma 大部分数据都在链上,但是在存提款场景都是主网发生,因此主网可以承诺其安全性。

这意味着,layer 2 应该只考虑把存提款这类重要操作才和主网强关联,这样即减轻了主网负担,又增强了L2自身性能。之前谈并行 EVM 时提到的 Sequencer“并行处理”能力,在链下筛选、分类预处理大量的交易,以及 Metis 推行的混合 Rollup,正常交易走 OP-Rollup,特殊提款请求走 ZK Route 等等都有类似的考虑。

以上。

总之,Vitalik 这篇思考以太坊未来扩容方案文章,非常有启发意义。尤其是对 layer 2 发展现状的不满,对 Blob 性能空间的乐观肯定,以及对未来分片技术的展望,甚至还苦口婆心指出了一些 layer 2 值得优化的方向等等。

其实,现在唯一的不确定留给 layer 2 自己了,该如何加速发展呢?

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Ethereum's Next Stop Glamsterdam: The Core Upgrades You Must Know

The Glamsterdam upgrade, scheduled for late 2026, is a major Ethereum hard fork combining the Amsterdam execution layer and Glasgow consensus layer updates. Its primary goal is not simply increasing throughput but restructuring Ethereum's block production, validation, and resource pricing to enable future scaling. Key technical changes include **EIP-7732 (ePBS)**, which formally enshrines proposer-builder separation into the protocol. This decouples consensus and execution tasks, extending the execution payload propagation window to ~9 seconds. This provides more time for node verification, allowing for safer increases in block capacity (Gas limit) in the future. Another core component is **EIP-7928 (Block-Level Access Lists - BAL)**. It mandates a list of all state accessed within a block, moving this feature from an optional transaction-level (EIP-2930) to a mandatory block-level requirement. This explicit access list enables client optimizations like parallel disk reads and state root computations, paving the way for parallel execution. To manage long-term state growth, **EIP-8037** increases the cost of creating new state (e.g., accounts, storage slots), separating the pricing of permanent database bloat from temporary computation. This allows execution capacity to scale more aggressively without causing state size to explode proportionally. The planned upgrade bundle includes around 10 EIPs categorized into: 1) Core protocol restructuring (ePBS, BAL), 2) Resource pricing adjustments (state costs, calldata costs), and 3) EVM/developer improvements. Several other EIPs, including those potentially improving staker exit liquidity (EIP-8061, EIP-8080), are under consideration. The technical development coincides with significant personnel changes within the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol team. The Foundation's official communications frame this as part of a broader shift towards a "coalition of organizations" working on the Ethereum roadmap, citing new entities like ethlabs and the Ethereum Economic Zone. In summary, Glamsterdam represents a foundational re-engineering of Ethereum's block pipeline and economic model—focusing on ePBS, BAL, and multi-dimensional resource pricing—to prepare the network for sustainable, high-throughput scaling in the years ahead.

Foresight News10m ago

Ethereum's Next Stop Glamsterdam: The Core Upgrades You Must Know

Foresight News10m ago

The Ethereum Foundation Has Split?! An In-depth Look at Ethlabs' "Bright Future"

"Ethereum Foundation Splits? Understanding Ethlabs and Its 'Bright Future'" Former Ethereum Foundation members Ansgar Dietrichs, Barnabé Monnot, Caspar Schwarz-Schilling, Josh Rudolf, and Julian Ma have announced the launch of Ethlabs, an independent non-profit research and development lab. Announced on June 22nd, the initiative comes amidst discussions about the need for new organizational structures within the Ethereum ecosystem, a point highlighted by Bankless founder David Hoffman. Ethlabs' mission is to establish Ethereum as the foundational settlement layer for the global economy. The organization positions itself as a bridge connecting frontline developers, applications, and user needs with the core protocol. It aims to translate real-world demands into protocol improvements, industry standards, and deployable products. The founding team brings significant expertise: Dietrichs and Monnot are highly cited researchers in areas like Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) and MEV, while Schwarz-Schilling, Rudolf, and Ma contribute backgrounds in economic modeling, consensus research, and applied cryptography. Initial supporters include BitMine, a major corporate ETH treasury; Sharplink, another treasury firm; and Consensys founder Joe Lubin in a personal capacity. Community backers include figures like Uniswap's Hayden Adams and Base's Jesse Pollak. The timing coincides with internal Ethereum Foundation discussions about "spinout" projects. While Ethlabs and the Foundation share research interests like MEV mitigation, Ethlabs frames its role not as a competitor but as part of a shift from a "single-core coordination model" to a "multi-R&D entity collaboration model." It views Ethereum as a public project belonging to all builders, with Ethlabs as one node in a broader governance network. Ultimately, Ethlabs represents an organizational evolution within the maturing Ethereum ecosystem. The key question is whether multiple research bodies can collaborate effectively to advance Ethereum as a competitive global settlement infrastructure.

Odaily星球日报13m ago

The Ethereum Foundation Has Split?! An In-depth Look at Ethlabs' "Bright Future"

Odaily星球日报13m ago

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

"A Short Seller's Dire Prediction: AI Boom Fading, US Stocks to Peak by Q3 with 30-50% Decline" Prominent macro investors Jeffrey Gundlach and Felix Zulauf warn that the AI-driven market rally is nearing its end, forecasting a major US stock market correction of 30-50%, potentially beginning as early as Q3. Their analysis points to alarming parallels with historical market tops, citing extreme concentration in the top AI-related stocks within the S&P 500. Zulauf's bearish thesis hinges on unsustainable capital expenditure trends among major cloud companies, negative free cash flow emergence, and soaring semiconductor prices. Gundlach highlights dangerous parallels to the 1999 tech bubble peak. A key divergence from conventional wisdom is Gundlach's view that long-term Treasury yields will not fall meaningfully even during a recession, due to America's structurally out-of-control fiscal deficits and soaring interest costs. He warns this could force the government into yield curve control or even a sovereign debt restructuring. Both investors express severe concerns about the opaque private credit market, drawing parallels to the pre-2008 financial crisis environment. They allege widespread rating inflation, misrepresented credit quality, liquidity illusions, and fraudulent asset valuations within this sector. The analysis links the AI boom and private credit crisis through financing costs. They argue that as AI companies' cash flows weaken and they seek funding, a high and sticky long-term interest rate environment will severely stress lower-rated corporate borrowers, exposing cracks in credit markets. Finally, they predict a regime shift where the US dollar weakens and US equities underperform global markets, marking the end of their long dominance. The stage is set for a significant market reversal.

marsbit21m ago

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

marsbit21m ago

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

**Title: Why Isn't DeFi Insurance Being Bought?** DeFi insurance, which promised automated, unbiased payouts via smart contracts, has failed to gain traction. The core issue is economic: high premiums severely erode the yields that attract users to DeFi in the first place. For example, insuring a USDC deposit on Aave V3 could cost 1.5–2.5% of the annual yield, leaving a net return barely above a savings account. For riskier platforms like Maple Finance or Ethena, premiums can even turn net yields negative. Consequently, users often forgo insurance, as it nullifies their profit motive. The market also suffers from structural flaws. First, DeFi risks are highly correlated (e.g., an oracle failure can impact multiple protocols simultaneously), unlike the independent risks in traditional insurance. This makes large-scale events potentially catastrophic for insurers. Second, the total capital in DeFi insurance pools (e.g., Nexus Mutual's ~$81.5M) is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions in total value locked (TVL), creating a massive capacity gap. A single major hack could drain the entire industry's reserves. Furthermore, the governance model where tokenholders vote on claims creates a conflict of interest, incentivizing them to deny payouts to protect their own funds. As a result, the sector is shrinking. While pioneers like Nexus Mutual are pivoting to preventative measures (bug bounties) and seeking external capital via reinsurance, the fundamental problems remain. DeFi insurance represents a public good—its stability benefits the entire ecosystem—but without a mechanism to share costs, a "tragedy of the commons" ensues where no one is willing to pay, leaving the system vulnerable.

marsbit35m ago

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

marsbit35m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片